climate change questions

[Prof David West]

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate, argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our chances?

davew

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[thompnickson2]

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
human reach.

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
wasteplot.  

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
would obliterate that possibility.  

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
scare the Living Crap out of you.  

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
harvested for the long run.

Happy New Year!

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
chances?

davew

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

Frank

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
human reach.

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
wasteplot. 

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
would obliterate that possibility. 

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
scare the Living Crap out of you. 

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
harvested for the long run.

Happy New Year!

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
chances?

davew

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

Frank

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
human reach.

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
wasteplot. 

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
would obliterate that possibility. 

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
scare the Living Crap out of you. 

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
harvested for the long run.

Happy New Year!

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
chances?

davew

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[thompnickson2]

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury. 

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
human reach.

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
wasteplot. 

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
would obliterate that possibility. 

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
scare the Living Crap out of you. 

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
harvested for the long run.

Happy New Year!

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
chances?

davew

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

See the third "Read More" item on the NASA page cited above.  

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:56 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury. 

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
human reach.

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
wasteplot. 

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
would obliterate that possibility. 

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
scare the Living Crap out of you. 

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
harvested for the long run.

Happy New Year!

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
chances?

davew

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[doug carmichael]

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
human reach. 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
wasteplot.  

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
would obliterate that possibility.  

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
scare the Living Crap out of you.  

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
harvested for the long run. 

Happy New Year!

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
chances?

davew

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

convict of what?

premeditated Gaia murder?

voluntary climate slaughter?

involuntary climate slaughter?

reckless endangerment?

conspiracy to commit climate change?

accessory after the fact?

Not trying to be either specious or difficult. I would be ready to vote in favor of human activity contributing the "tipping point factor" but not the cause.

The following is stipulated:

 - Dr. Kwok, et. al. are correctly reporting phenomena and consequences.

 - The planet is getting warmer.

 - Human activities are a critical component of the cause, and the only factors that might be altered to partially ameliorate the situation.

But,

How to I analyze the models (I am unwilling to just take 'The Experts" word on the matter) and evaluate the importance of the various factors such that I can start to plan a course, mostly personal, of action.

What options are available to remediate the problem. What options might I adopt as an individual? What options must I try to convince the masses to adopt?

How to I avoid being exploited - by politicians seeking power, by opportunists seeking an income, from fraud like green washing?

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:55 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury. 

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach.

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot. 

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility. 

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you. 

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run.

Happy New Year!

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

davew

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[thompnickson2]

Doug,

 

I happen to agree with your opinion.  That’s two.  But what can we all agree on.

 

According to mythology, people should reason with respect to impending catastrophe as follows:

 

If a catastrophe impends, I must do x.

A catastrophe impends,

I must do x.

 

In fact, humans tend to reason as follows.

 

I don’t want to do X

If a catastrophe impends, then I would do X.

Therefore no catastrophe impends. 

 

 

So the facts must be absolutely irrefutable before we see any political change. 

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Douglass Carmichael
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

 

 

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------
Frank Wimberly

My memoir:
https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
human reach. 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
wasteplot.  

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
would obliterate that possibility.  

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
scare the Living Crap out of you.  

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
harvested for the long run. 

Happy New Year!

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/



-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
chances?

davew

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign ourselves to the inevitable?

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach. 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot.  

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility.  

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you.  

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run. 

Happy New Year!

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

davew

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

Nick,

I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
> challenge.
>
> What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
> somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
> and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
> engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
> if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
> human reach.
>
> So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
> stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
> bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
> that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
> exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
> there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
> my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
> am talking about.  Ugh!
>
> I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
> we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
> is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
> Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
> supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
> the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
> one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
> knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
> your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
> my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
> 90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
> dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
> very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
> something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
> wasteplot.  
>
> I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
> a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
> I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
> ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
> anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
> agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
> idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
> same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
> or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
> would obliterate that possibility.  
>
> If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
> are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
> scare the Living Crap out of you.  
>
> The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
> and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
> harvested for the long run.
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> Nick
>
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>  
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>
> Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
> change.
>
> In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
> of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
> Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
> Fahrenheit by 2020.
>
> The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
> increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
> being 3-5 by the year 2020.
>
> The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.
>
> The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
> domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.
>
> The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.
>
> Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
> argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
> incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
> over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
> simply "circulation" motives.
>
> In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
> expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?
>
> Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
> "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"
>
> Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
> scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
> socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?
>
> Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
> do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
> chances?
>
> davew
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Prof David West]

an anonymous source tossed this across my transom a bit ago. Worth sharing I think

davew


On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:29 PM, Prof David West wrote:

> Nick,
>
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it
> is the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even
> more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to
> respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in
> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
> > challenge.
> >
> > What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
> > somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
> > and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
> > engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,
> > if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
> > human reach.
> >
> > So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
> > stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
> > bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
> > that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been
> > exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even
> > there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
> > my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
> > am talking about.  Ugh!
> >
> > I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what
> > we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
> > is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in
> > Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
> > supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year
> > the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from
> > one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden
> > knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
> > your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in
> > my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
> > 90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
> > dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a
> > very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
> > something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
> > wasteplot.  
> >
> > I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
> > a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
> > I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
> > ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that
> > anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
> > agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole
> > idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
> > same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
> > or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
> > would obliterate that possibility.  
> >
> > If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
> > are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
> > scare the Living Crap out of you.  
> >
> > The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
> > and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
> > harvested for the long run.
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> > Clark University
> > [hidden email]
> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >  
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions
> >
> > Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
> > change.
> >
> > In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
> > of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
> > Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
> > Fahrenheit by 2020.
> >
> > The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
> > increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
> > being 3-5 by the year 2020.
> >
> > The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.
> >
> > The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
> > domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.
> >
> > The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.
> >
> > Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
> > argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
> > incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
> > over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
> > simply "circulation" motives.
> >
> > In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
> > expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?
> >
> > Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
> > "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"
> >
> > Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
> > scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
> > socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?
> >
> > Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
> > do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
> > chances?
> >
> > davew
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> >
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[doug carmichael]

Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important questions: 

Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:



forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign ourselves to the inevitable?

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach. 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot.  

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility.  

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you.  

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run. 

Happy New Year!

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

davew

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[thompnickson2]

Please see larding below. 

 

My larder is still broken, but it should work well enough.

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:19 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

convict of what?

premeditated Gaia murder?

voluntary climate slaughter?

involuntary climate slaughter?

reckless endangerment?

conspiracy to commit climate change?

accessory after the fact?

[NST===>] All of the above. 

 

Not trying to be either specious or difficult. I would be ready to vote in favor of human activity contributing the "tipping point factor" but not the cause.

[NST===>] As a philosophy camp-follower, I am curious about the distinction, but right now we have a planet to save.

 

 

The following is stipulated:

 

 - Dr. Kwok, et. al. are correctly reporting phenomena and consequences.

[NST===>] Is the whole jury prepared to “convict” on these counts?  I am sorry, I should probably stop punning on “convict”, here.   I guess the real question is, are these proposition upon which we are all prepared to act?

 - The planet is getting warmer.

 - Human activities are a critical component of the cause, and the only factors that might be altered to partially ameliorate the situation.

[NST===>] Sorry, but the last part of the above was unclear to me.  Is there a missing word?

 

But,

How to I analyze the models (I am unwilling to just take 'The Experts" word on the matter) and evaluate the importance of the various factors such that I can start to plan a course, mostly personal, of action.

 

What options are available to remediate the problem. What options might I adopt as an individual? What options must I try to convince the masses to adopt?

 

 

How to I avoid being exploited - by politicians seeking power, by opportunists seeking an income, from fraud like green washing?

[NST===>] Dave, it seems there are two threads here.  One concerns trust.  An expert is just somebody whom we trust to evaluate the data for  us when we are incompetent to do so.  I sense in what you write here an assumption that you are going to be able to make your personal decisions without having to avail yourself of trust.  But surely that’s a dream, right?  So the question is, “How are we to deploy trust?

 

The second thread is the relation of personal responsibility to group action.  Now I think that we can stipulate that group action is the only way we are ever going to have a solution to the climate.  It’s like what your mom told you about those Poor Starving Armenians.  If every mom served to her kid only the amount of spinach that that kid would eat, and shipped all the rest to Armenia, the Armenians would not have starved.  But no rational connection exists between my eating my spinach, and any Armenian child being fed.  So, in fact, if we actually cared about Poor Starving Armenians, we would have paid to send a boat load of spinach over there, and eaten whatever spinach was left over.  In fact, perhaps we should have Federalized the Guard, confiscated all the spinach, and sent it to Armenia. Because even if every kid ate all the spinach on his plate, and every,  mom served her kid only what he would eat, still, and all, THAT WOULD NOT GET THE SPINACE TO ARMENIA. 

 

Yet the quakers had a point, and Gandhi had a point, and there is a point to voting.  If no individual takes action, then no action will be taken. 

 

 

davew

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:55 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury. 

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

 

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

 

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

 

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

 

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

 

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

 

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

 

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

 

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach.

 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

 

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot. 

 

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility. 

 

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you. 

 

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run.

 

Happy New Year!

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

 

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

 

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

 

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

 

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

 

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

 

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

 

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

 

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

 

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

 

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

 

davew

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling to reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal. 

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of doug carmichael <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important questions: 

Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:



forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign ourselves to the inevitable?

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach. 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot.  

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility.  

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you.  

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run. 

Happy New Year!

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

davew

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Frank Wimberly-2]

This is the position that humanity is an infection causing the Earth to suffer, right?

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 12:45 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling to reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal. 

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of doug carmichael <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important questions: 

Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:



forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign ourselves to the inevitable?

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach. 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot.  

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility.  

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you.  

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run. 

Happy New Year!

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

davew

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[thompnickson2]

From the aforementioned article:

 

I was particularly bemused by the escarpment at the bottom of the diagram:

 

 

 

 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:34 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

an anonymous source tossed this across my transom a bit ago. Worth sharing I think

 

davew

 

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:29 PM, Prof David West wrote:

> Nick,

>

> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se;

> it is the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even

> more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to

> respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in

> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.

>

> davew

>

>

> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> > Dave,

> >

> > I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take

> > them as a challenge.

> >

> > What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

> > somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to

> > climate change and human activity?  By what process, with what

> > attitudes, by what rules of engagement, are we likely to arrive at

> > ANY truth of that matter.  Because, if we, here, cannot agree on

> > some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond human reach.

> >

> > So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts

> > as stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are)

> > are not as bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am

> > inclined to believe that in fact Things are worse.  The only

> > specific data I feel I have been exposed to recently is ocean

> > surface rise and glacial melting.  But even there, I would be hard

> > pressed to match your specific references to any of my own.  So, I

> > guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I am talking about.  Ugh!

> >

> > I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following

> > concern:  what we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long

> > term climate warming, is increases in year-to-year climate

> > variability.  You can grow rape seed in Canada and maize in the US,

> > and as the climate alters, the bands of climate supporting these two

> > crops will move north.  But what happens if one year the climate

> > demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from one to

> > the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

> > knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the

> > productivity of your garden: first frost and last frost.  The

> > average frost free period in my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but

> > only a few miles away, it is as short as 90.  And while we have

> > never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost dates in June

> > and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a very

> > small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50 wasteplot.

> >

> > I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the

> > Holocene, is a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

> > I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in

> > the last ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely

> > dependent  on that anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not

> > too stupid to do agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would

> > not permit it.  The whole idea of nation states depends on the idea

> > that one can make more or less the same kind of living by staying

> > more or less in the same place and doing more or less the same

> > thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation would obliterate that possibility.

> >

> > If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global

> > Warming-- we are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by

> > God, I think I could scare the Living Crap out of you.

> >

> > The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to

> > do it, and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's

> > value could be harvested for the long run.

> >

> > Happy New Year!

> >

> > Nick

> >

> > Nicholas Thompson

> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University

> > [hidden email] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

> > 

> >

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

> > Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

> > To: [hidden email]

> > Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

> >

> > Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of

> > climate change.

> >

> > In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that

> > because of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an

> > average of 3 degrees Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest

> > producer, by an average of 6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020.

> >

> > The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

> > increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely

> > expectations being 3-5 by the year 2020.

> >

> > The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

> >

> > The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted

> > the end of domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

> >

> > The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

> >

> > Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

> > argument for the need to address climate change in the context of

> > badly incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available

> > scientific models, and over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated

> > by those with political or simply "circulation" motives.

> >

> > In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar

> > everyone expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

> >

> > Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the

> > proposed "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

> >

> > Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to

> > carbon scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios,

> > human socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

> >

> > Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if

> > so, how do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will

> > optimize our chances?

> >

> > davew

> >

> > ============================================================

> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at

> > cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

> >

> >

> > ============================================================

> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at

> > cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

> >

>

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe

> at St. John's College to unsubscribe

> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

> 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Steve Smith]

See the Medea Hypothesis vs the Gaia Hypothesis vs the Fermi Paradox (as another way to avoid/stall responding to the Climate Crisis OR the Chinese Hoax, depending on your preferred sociopolitical attractor) <tongue-in-cheek>.

On 1/1/20 12:50 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

This is the position that humanity is an infection causing the Earth to suffer, right?

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 12:45 PM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling to reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal. 

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of doug carmichael <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important questions: 

Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:



forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign ourselves to the inevitable?

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach. 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot.  

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility.  

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you.  

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run. 

Happy New Year!

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

davew

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[thompnickson2]

Marcus,

 

I haven’t known a Marxist for many years, but I think this corresponds to a dictum of Marxist thought: Stop Feeding the Dinosaur!

 

That may, of course, be the best utilitarian strategy, the strategy with the least suffering in the long run.  Some comments: as a higher-life-form chauvinist, to join you in your opinion, I would have first to assume that human beings didn’t end their existence with a nuclear … um … event.  Second, I guess I am not a utilitarian, because I keep thinking of my grandchildren.  I don’t think anybody with grand children can take your rational position to heart.

 

Whatever “heart” is.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:45 PM
To: doug carmichael <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling to reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal. 

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of doug carmichael <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important questions: 

 

Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 

 

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:



forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

 

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign ourselves to the inevitable?

 

davew

 

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

 

 

doug

 

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

 

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

 

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

 

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

 

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

 

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

 

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

 

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

 

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach. 

 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

 

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot.  

 

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility.  

 

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you.  

 

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run. 

 

Happy New Year!

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

 

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

 

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

 

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

 

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

 

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

 

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

 

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

 

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

 

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

 

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

 

davew

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Nick writes:

< Some comments: as a higher-life-form chauvinist, to join you in your opinion, I would have first to assume that human beings didn’t end their existence with a nuclear … um … event. >

That's so 20th century.

< Second, I guess I am not a utilitarian, because I keep thinking of my grandchildren.  I don’t think anybody with grand children can take your rational position to heart. >

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to write them a check to build their technology platform.  

Marcus

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Marcus,

 

I haven’t known a Marxist for many years, but I think this corresponds to a dictum of Marxist thought: Stop Feeding the Dinosaur!

 

That may, of course, be the best utilitarian strategy, the strategy with the least suffering in the long run.  Some comments: as a higher-life-form chauvinist, to join you in your opinion, I would have first to assume that human beings didn’t end their existence with a nuclear … um … event.  Second, I guess I am not a utilitarian, because I keep thinking of my grandchildren.  I don’t think anybody with grand children can take your rational position to heart.

 

Whatever “heart” is.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:45 PM
To: doug carmichael <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

It seems to me the solution is to do nothing.   The world has to become relatively toxic and inhospitable.  Then people will be unable or unwilling to reproduce, the population will drop, and the earth can heal. 

---

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of doug carmichael <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Let’s say we are able to bring the price of solar generated electricity below that of electricity generated by fossil fuels. This leaves several important questions: 

 

Who pays for replacing the gas heater with an electric heater? That includes installation and remodeling costs  as well as the cost for the device. The energy companies will work hard to make sure we generate that electricity with oil and gas - and more coal than we want to acknowledge. The number of new electric heaters that would  have to be manufactured is on the order of 50-100 million for the US, and what of half the world that still cooks  on open fires? Such manufacturing is going to produce more pollution and use even more energy. It requires old  technologies of mining the minerals and producing the plastics that go into the manufacturing these units, as  well as their transportation from mine to factory, and from the factory to homes. 

 

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:



forgive me, but "it is clear" implies that there is no other alternative. I don't believe that because I have read myriad ways of remediating the consequences of that use. Those alternatives are expensive, but more expensive than the social and economic consequences of ending fossil fuels?

 

If the only solution is one that will not be utilized, do we simply resign ourselves to the inevitable?

 

davew

 

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:16 PM, Douglass Carmichael wrote:

We are stuck at the point where, to stay under 1.5 or 2,  it is clear that we must cut fossil fuel extraction and use and there is no existing politics todo it because it mans loss of jobs, failures of mortgages, collapse of banks - and starvation. And this  is  Implies that we must move toward powerful centralization and decentralization at the same time.

 

 

doug

 

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

 

Friammers:

 

Let’s constitute ourselves as the “climate change jury”.    The jury can have a conviction but only if we all agree.  Otherwise we remain a hung jury.  

 

So, does the Jury agree that with Dr. Kwok of JPL that “ … sea level rise, disappearing sea ice, melting ice sheets and other changes are happening”?

 

If, so, is the jury prepared to convict human activities for causing those changes?

 

I am polling the jury. 

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

From NASA:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/

 

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

 

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

 

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

 

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:24 AM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

What scares me is recent assertions that we have passed the tipping point and there is nothing we can do about it.  I have no references.

 

Frank

-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

 

My memoir:

https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly

 

My scientific publications:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

 

Phone [phone]

 

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, 11:09 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave,

 

I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a

challenge.

 

What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if

somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change

and human activity?  By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of

engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter.  Because,

if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond

human reach. 

 

So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as

stated.  They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as

bad as they were predicted to be.  Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe

that in fact Things are worse.  The only specific data I feel I have been

exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting.  But even

there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of

my own.  So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I

am talking about.  Ugh!

 

I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern:  what

we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,

is increases in year-to-year climate variability.  You can grow rape seed in

Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate

supporting these two crops will move north.  But what happens if one year

the climate demands one crop and the next the other?  And the switch from

one to the other is entirely unpredictable.  Anybody who plants a garden

knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of

your garden: first frost and last frost.  The average frost free period in

my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as

90.  And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost

dates in June and first frost dates in early September.  It would take a

very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from

something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50

wasteplot.  

 

I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is

a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.

I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last

ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent  on that

anomalous stability.  The neanderthals were not too stupid to do

agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it.  The whole

idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the

same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more

or less the same thing.  A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation

would obliterate that possibility.  

 

If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we

are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could

scare the Living Crap out of you.  

 

The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,

and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be

harvested for the long run. 

 

Happy New Year!

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West

Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions

 

Questions,  that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate

change.

 

In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because

of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees

Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees

Fahrenheit by 2020.

 

The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature

increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations

being 3-5 by the year 2020.

 

The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.

 

The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of

domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.

 

The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.

 

Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,

argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly

incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and

over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or

simply "circulation" motives.

 

In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone

expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?

 

Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed

"solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"

 

Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon

scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human

socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?

 

Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how

do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our

chances?

 

davew

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove