Friam

climate change questions

Classic

List

Threaded

45 messages Options

123

Curt McNamara

Re: climate change questions

Per Prof West's comments --

In some cases you state degrees F and in others the scale is unspecified. It is good to keep the scale consistent. The IPCC uses degrees C.

For a good overview of the IPCC (including brief summaries of models) see the wikipedia page. Since the IPCC is a large group which operates by consensus their summaries and predictions are conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

For what to do, consider Project Drawdown. They interviewed multiple stakeholders and created models which were then ranked by effectiveness.

https://www.drawdown.org/

From my understanding, most of the difference between early models and actual data was due to: oceans warming (i.e. absorbing heat) and global dimming. If you are interested I can send links. IMHO it is great that the models are evolving, and that things (so far) are slower than prediction. Like many others, the current data on tipping points is very concerning to me.

Curt

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 10:45 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Mike Orshan

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi:

Mostly I monitor the group, but today since I'm very much involved in solving the warming issue, I'll offer my argument. First, let's avoid the estimates and look at what is happening. Most agree that storms, earthquakes, fires, and other natural disasters are increasing. Let's just focus on this and agree this is caused by new weather. In the past five or six years we have all seen what has happened in Europe with 2M mostly Syrian refugees. Turkey because a policial hot plate, so did Greece, then France, Germany and Britain saw the rise in rightist anti-immigration governments. Even Trump can be seen as an anti-immigration government. What happens when the rate of these disasters increase? We are expecting a huge rise in climate refugees. In less than ten years we will see 5M to 20M a year. Whatever that number turns out to be, it is a huge multiple of the Syrian immigration. Remember we have lived through this in Santa Fe with the influx from Katrina and that was maybe 15,000 or so. Even California with the Camp Fire victims are living through 20 to 30,000 people who lost homes and it has affected the local communities. So, what does the world do?

We need to start looking at solutions fast. Let's work on limiting carbon in the atmosphere, it is one of the few options we have. Right now it is the warming that is most critical to the world. I saw the published stats in the post. Many problems happen during warming, the last problem happens at an ocean increase of 6C. Then rain stops.

Increasing the population of trees, limiting the cattle sizes, and such solutions need to start soon. If you look for a tipping point I believe it is when costs become irrelevant. Then we are into desperation, like a real war. We need to move forward before we reach this stage.

Mike Orshan

GM of Arctech Solar

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 4:45 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Prof David West

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick,

The last sentence simply stated that human activities contribute, almost certainly critically, to the problem. And the only causal factors that we might be able to change are those same human activities.

What is being stipulated is that humans, individually and collectively, must be the change agents. Other contributory causes like solar cycles, natural climate cycles, etc. cannot change or be changed.

Sorry if the terseness of the original expression led to ambiguity.

As to trust - yes, I am arrogant enough to believe I can follow an argument and understand the premises / assumptions / and conclusions of the models and reports produced by the experts. No, I do not understand the math or the specialized science. But, if the experts cannot express themselves clearly enough to meet me half-way then they are no better than witch doctors explaining how voudun works.

The other dimension of trust mentioned involves avoiding being manipulated (politicians, rent-seekers, ecological cultists - and they do exist) or defrauded.

Two examples, I am very leery of purchasing carbon offsets for the only way I have to go home once in a while - jet travel. A couple of reasons: I can't see exactly how my money actually does something other than line someone's pockets; and it feels a whole lot like spitting on a forest fire. There must be a better way to spend my funds.

I don't see the point in supporting politicians like Ocasio-Cortez or even Warren and trying to convince people to give up their cars or quit eating meat in order to reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, simply because I have zero belief that it will happen. I do see a greater likelihood that money contributed to research on carbon scrubbers will result in something that will help and will be actually put into play.

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:44 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

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 (505) 670-9918

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 (505) 670-9918

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

Carl Tollander

Re: climate change questions

Saul Griffith interview on energy flows and climate (mitigation/adaptation). Recommended by John Baez.

I think "solve" is a little strong, I'd use "address".

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2019/12/28/how-to-solve-climate-change/

As to the issue of climate models being accurate over time...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

There are a billion or so people who will be affected by melting glaciers in the Hindu Kush, so there will be a lot of folks on the move relatively shortly.

Carl

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 3:09 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick,

The last sentence simply stated that human activities contribute, almost certainly critically, to the problem. And the only causal factors that we might be able to change are those same human activities.

What is being stipulated is that humans, individually and collectively, must be the change agents. Other contributory causes like solar cycles, natural climate cycles, etc. cannot change or be changed.

Sorry if the terseness of the original expression led to ambiguity.

As to trust - yes, I am arrogant enough to believe I can follow an argument and understand the premises / assumptions / and conclusions of the models and reports produced by the experts. No, I do not understand the math or the specialized science. But, if the experts cannot express themselves clearly enough to meet me half-way then they are no better than witch doctors explaining how voudun works.

The other dimension of trust mentioned involves avoiding being manipulated (politicians, rent-seekers, ecological cultists - and they do exist) or defrauded.

Two examples, I am very leery of purchasing carbon offsets for the only way I have to go home once in a while - jet travel. A couple of reasons: I can't see exactly how my money actually does something other than line someone's pockets; and it feels a whole lot like spitting on a forest fire. There must be a better way to spend my funds.

I don't see the point in supporting politicians like Ocasio-Cortez or even Warren and trying to convince people to give up their cars or quit eating meat in order to reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, simply because I have zero belief that it will happen. I do see a greater likelihood that money contributed to research on carbon scrubbers will result in something that will help and will be actually put into play.

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:44 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
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 (505) 670-9918

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 (505) 670-9918

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

Stephen Guerin-5

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by doug carmichael

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 12:16 PM Douglass Carmichael <[hidden email]> 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,

I'm intrigued. Can you say more about your last point about the simultaneous movement toward centralization and decentralization?

Welcome to Friam - I've seen you post a few times over the last 5 years. I poked around your sites, downloaded Gardenworld and checked out your Bio - incredible depth!

-Stephen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave writes:

< I don't see the point in supporting politicians like Ocasio-Cortez or even Warren and trying to convince people to give up their cars or quit eating meat in order to reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, simply because I have zero belief that it will happen. I do see a greater likelihood that money contributed to research on carbon scrubbers will result in something that will help and will be actually put into play. >

Tax greenhouse gas emissions to keep the research going. There’s been some pushback [1] about that. The text [2] reads:

“(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring

natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;”

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/first-fight-about-democrats-climate-green-new-deal/580543/

[2] https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres109/BILLS-116hres109ih.pdf

Curt McNamara

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Prof West comments on carbon offsets - "I can't see exactly how my money actually does something other than line someone's pockets; and it feels a whole lot like spitting on a forest fire. There must be a better way to spend my funds."

Quite a few years ago i calculated my ecological footprint. Even with all the cool stuff* :-) i was doing, there was still significant impact. And a good part of that was flying occasionally. I had also heard that offsets were sketchy, and that some folks said they would just encourage people to use more fossil fuels.

After digging into it for a while I found a couple organizations where the projects are third party certified. The one i use is TerraPass. It costs me about $15 a month to offset more carbon than i consume. And it goes to good projects. Perfect? No. Continuously improving? Yes. What would happen if a few million concerned about climate change signed up? Wow.

One reason I do as much as i can: kids, nieces, nephews, and the nature that i love so much. And i agree that waiting for government to act is futile.

I still do a lot of cool stuff and actually manage some land with climate in mind (which seems like the next step up).

And i continually look for ways (like Project Drawdown) to be more effective.

Curt

* year round biking, very low auto use; high efficiency home insulation; setback thermostat; no ac; purchase wind energy; eat local food (mostly plants); educate those who are interested.

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 4:09 PM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Nick,

The last sentence simply stated that human activities contribute, almost certainly critically, to the problem. And the only causal factors that we might be able to change are those same human activities.

What is being stipulated is that humans, individually and collectively, must be the change agents. Other contributory causes like solar cycles, natural climate cycles, etc. cannot change or be changed.

Sorry if the terseness of the original expression led to ambiguity.

As to trust - yes, I am arrogant enough to believe I can follow an argument and understand the premises / assumptions / and conclusions of the models and reports produced by the experts. No, I do not understand the math or the specialized science. But, if the experts cannot express themselves clearly enough to meet me half-way then they are no better than witch doctors explaining how voudun works.

The other dimension of trust mentioned involves avoiding being manipulated (politicians, rent-seekers, ecological cultists - and they do exist) or defrauded.

Two examples, I am very leery of purchasing carbon offsets for the only way I have to go home once in a while - jet travel. A couple of reasons: I can't see exactly how my money actually does something other than line someone's pockets; and it feels a whole lot like spitting on a forest fire. There must be a better way to spend my funds.

I don't see the point in supporting politicians like Ocasio-Cortez or even Warren and trying to convince people to give up their cars or quit eating meat in order to reduce the amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere, simply because I have zero belief that it will happen. I do see a greater likelihood that money contributed to research on carbon scrubbers will result in something that will help and will be actually put into play.

davew

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:44 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
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 (505) 670-9918

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 (505) 670-9918

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

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Steven Smith and Stephen Guerin were two of the complex systems scientists our organization (The Center for Emergent Diplomacy) invited to join a conference we organized in Stockholm a few weeks ago--combining our guys with our Swedish network of scientists and policy wonks working seriously on climate emergency. My idea was that the deep dialogue on global warming that I experience (and sometimes facilitate) happening around the world everywhere but here in the U.S--could really benefit from a Complexity spin. Steve and Stephen are somewhat up-to-date, and you might get some interesting replies from them.

By the way--all the major government reports, including the UN IPCC reports, are heavily censored because of how the research is funded. There is tremendous pressure to present only best-case scenarios-- for obvious corporate reasons. Also, if any of you think the disaster scenarios are "over-hyped", you really don't have a clue. Yes, the future is unprestateable, but many parts of the world are already experiencing the future of global warming in the present, like a good science fiction story. And there is a rapidly growing scientific consensus about how quickly the window is closing on any attempts to contain the risk to human survival on a much-altered planet.

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:45 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

thompnickson2

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

Tom Johnson

Re: climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)

Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

Prof David West

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Merle Lefkoff-2

Merle wrote:

" ... the deep dialogue on global warming that I experience (and sometimes facilitate) happening around the world everywhere but here in the U.S ..."

Echo that

-- I am now experiencing two kinds of deep personal shame at the moment. One because everybody but me knows and converses in at least three languages; and second everyone except me seems to have well developed, comprehensive, and implemented plans for making a difference vis a vis global warming.

BTW the Dutch Supreme Court just ruled that the Government can be sued for not doing enough to ameliorate climate change - a lawsuit similar to the one in the US that the Obama and Trump administration was and is fighting (and so far losing) brought originally by teenagers as a civil rights case.

The Dutch Court used a section of European Union law that makes all the other countries in the Union vulnerable to similar lawsuits and those lawsuits are promptly being filed.

anecdotal evidence - this is going to be a record warm winter in Amsterdam -- not a drop of snow (there never is much) and only 3 days so far with a high temperature below 0 centigrade, and the worst of those was -2 centigrade and only for about 4 hours.

davew

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, at 7:06 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Steven Smith and Stephen Guerin were two of the complex systems scientists our organization (The Center for Emergent Diplomacy) invited to join a conference we organized in Stockholm a few weeks ago--combining our guys with our Swedish network of scientists and policy wonks working seriously on climate emergency. My idea was that the deep dialogue on global warming that I experience (and sometimes facilitate) happening around the world everywhere but here in the U.S--could really benefit from a Complexity spin. Steve and Stephen are somewhat up-to-date, and you might get some interesting replies from them.

By the way--all the major government reports, including the UN IPCC reports, are heavily censored because of how the research is funded. There is tremendous pressure to present only best-case scenarios-- for obvious corporate reasons. Also, if any of you think the disaster scenarios are "over-hyped", you really don't have a clue. Yes, the future is unprestateable, but many parts of the world are already experiencing the future of global warming in the present, like a good science fiction story. And there is a rapidly growing scientific consensus about how quickly the window is closing on any attempts to contain the risk to human survival on a much-altered planet.

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:45 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
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

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
============================================================
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

Re: climate change questions

Dave,

No skating on the polders this year!

Cold as hell in Santa Fe, if that’s any comfort.

It’s funny about that shame thing. It’s one of those forces that connects individual actions with group-level consequences.

Feeds those Armenians.

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 Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 2:39 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Merle wrote:

" ... the deep dialogue on global warming that I experience (and sometimes facilitate) happening around the world everywhere but here in the U.S ..."

Echo that

The Dutch Court used a section of European Union law that makes all the other countries in the Union vulnerable to similar lawsuits and those lawsuits are promptly being filed.

davew

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, at 7:06 AM, Merle Lefkoff wrote:

Steven Smith and Stephen Guerin were two of the complex systems scientists our organization (The Center for Emergent Diplomacy) invited to join a conference we organized in Stockholm a few weeks ago--combining our guys with our Swedish network of scientists and policy wonks working seriously on climate emergency. My idea was that the deep dialogue on global warming that I experience (and sometimes facilitate) happening around the world everywhere but here in the U.S--could really benefit from a Complexity spin. Steve and Stephen are somewhat up-to-date, and you might get some interesting replies from them.

By the way--all the major government reports, including the UN IPCC reports, are heavily censored because of how the research is funded. There is tremendous pressure to present only best-case scenarios-- for obvious corporate reasons. Also, if any of you think the disaster scenarios are "over-hyped", you really don't have a clue. Yes, the future is unprestateable, but many parts of the world are already experiencing the future of global warming in the present, like a good science fiction story. And there is a rapidly growing scientific consensus about how quickly the window is closing on any attempts to contain the risk to human survival on a much-altered planet.

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:45 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
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

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
============================================================
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

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Tom Johnson

Dave writes:

< 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.>

Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it. No drug that works doesn't have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)

Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: climate change questions

And what treatment do you suggest, Marcus?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:46 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave writes:

< 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.>

Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it. No drug that works doesn't have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)
Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

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

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

thompnickson2

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Merle,

I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.

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: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Dave writes:

< 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.>

Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it. No drug that works doesn't have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)

Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: climate change questions

I think he should say reducing greenhouse gases and

Other mitigation strategies include:

Improving the energy efficiency of buildings to reduce emissions from heating/cooling
Planting forests and tree to remove excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere
Reducing fuel emissions associated with motor vehicles

I like the planting approaches.

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

Frank Wimberly

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

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

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Merle,

I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.

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: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Dave writes:

< 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.>
Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it. No drug that works doesn't have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)
Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Merle Lefkoff-2

Merle writes:

< And what treatment do you suggest, Marcus? >

The treatment is the necessary physical consequence of past and current actions of humans on this planet. To the extent humans could augment that treatment for our own collective benefit, I suppose we could escort nationalists to evacuated areas to enjoy the 140 F weather, minus air conditioning. But seriously, I do think that after a tipping point becomes plain as day, that coercive approaches will be unavoidable. There's probably a lot of money to be made on real estate before things really get ugly.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

And what treatment do you suggest, Marcus?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:46 AM Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dave writes:

< 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.>

Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it. No drug that works doesn't have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)
Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

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

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

gepr

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Curt McNamara

I really appreciate lists like this. I'd add a few of my own: only fly on business and only when necessary, work remotely as much as possible, consolidate online orders to reduce the number of deliveries, tap water, etc. I fail often, though, e.g. taking 2 extra bodies with me on my last business trip, extra trips with my pickup truck during my recent move, eating lots of meat while on the cancer drugs, etc.

The trouble, however, is that no amount of individual cutting back by a conscientious person will compensate for the behavior of your average American. Renee's son, for example, lives in fear of tap water and, therefore, only drinks bottled water ... mostly from little plastic bottles ... never mind all the plastic in his clothing, which consists mostly of tech-fabrics. My closest and oldest friend is, in spite of my attempts to shame him, a committed tourist, flying to 2 or more distant lands every year just for *pleasure*. And even though he has a decent public transit route to his job, he drives his (admittedly efficient) gas-powered scooter ~40 miles every workday .... never mind all the .75 ton trucks carrying city-cowboys to their desk jobs at 85 mph in, say, Dallas, TX.

It seems a little like bvllsh¡t. Their behaviors are easier and more "efficient" than the penny-wise behaviors that are more energy efficient, in the same way bvllsh¡t spreads/survives more easily than truth. Any solution will come in the form of something that severely *resets* all of our behavior, be it government or the earth, herself.

On 1/1/20 8:08 PM, Curt McNamara wrote:
> * year round biking, very low auto use; high efficiency home insulation; setback thermostat; no ac; purchase wind energy; eat local food (mostly plants); educate those who are interested.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

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

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Well, he's right. There a rapidly increasing number of "climate refugees" and some interesting maps of the next best places in the world to survive by building small communities, amending the soil, and growing and storing food.

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:51 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Merle,

I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.

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: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Dave writes:

< 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.>
Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it. No drug that works doesn't have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)
Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

David Eric Smith

Re: climate change questions

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

And not only forests.

Restructure agriculture. The perennial polyculture concept for which Wes Jackson founded the Land Institute

https://landinstitute.org/

Is meant to base farming on a cropping system with the structure of a prairie sod. Either farmland or prairie may have 1/2 meter to 2m of annual stem and leaf mass above ground. But farmland today has a few 10s of cm (if that) of annual subsurface root. The prairie sods of the Great Plains, before being plowed up, could have 2m depth of perennial root mass. In addition to greater capacity to absorb water from episodic rain and deliver it under conditions of drought, it retains nutrients, reducing inputs with their energy waste, and runoff. 2m doesn’t seem so much compared to a tree, but if one multiplies this by the area currently under commodity cropping, it may amount to more carbon than the part of the US currently under forest.

I like to think of forest and grassland as part of a whole nutrient-shed pipeline. Trees mine the deep rock in ways that herbs can’t, and the leaf litter is a surface deposit at the margins of prairie basins. The grasslands can depend on the flux of that rare material, recycling along the way, as it runs eventually to the continental drainage as the biotically augmented part of continental weathering.

These kinds of redesigns are whole-system oriented, and really have to be understood, I think, in the language of public goods. So we are looking at government, civil society, culture, or something to coordinate and require a system restructure.

The idea that “there’s no way we can get these sociopathic bastards to do anything” is I think a reflection of the luxury of not yet being scared. The sailors haven’t stopped swearing because they don’t realize the ship is in trouble. There is a wonderful documentary

https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-power-of-community-how-cuba-survived-peak-oil-2006/

about the restructuring of Cuban agriculture when oil suddenly disappeared, and also international credit, on a span of months surrounding the disassembly of the former Soviet Union. All of a sudden, for the people, it was “change or starve”. For the government it was “change or get your head chopped off in a revolution”. Remarkable how choices like that suddenly opened the possibility space, both for single actors as smallholders, and for the government as an aid and coordinator rather than an impediment. Japan and Australia contributed a little bit in the way of resources and know-how, but most fo the credit goes to Cuban agronomic and medical knowledge that was already resident and just needing support to be better deployed. The best thing about the Cuban story is that it doesn’t distill down into sound bites. The restructure was complex, with to-task decisions of many kinds needing to be made. And there was no starvation and no revolution. They came through it nutritionally at least as well-off as they had started, if somewhat less overfed on fast calories and pork.

I am brought back again to Ortega y Gasset’s argument that cultures collapse because ideas that were once real and tied to the substance of living become conventionalized to topics, phrases, and empty repetition of others rather than understandings held by oneself of concrete problems that need solving. We envision the possibilities too much in terms of the habits of people around us because they are stubborn and we don’t see the levers to move them. Glen is right, too: when everything about the society around you makes waste the available method, it requires a kind of proteus to invent a whole survivable life for himself with new methods. There are such people, but it consumes all of their effort just to live without harm. If a society makes more non-damaging ways of doing things available, ordinary people have the option of living with less harm, and the proteuses in one or another domain have some spare energy to try to extend what is possible, rather than just tread water.

Anyway,

Eric

On Jan 3, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think he should say reducing greenhouse gases and

Other mitigation strategies include:
Improving the energy efficiency of buildings to reduce emissions from heating/cooling
Planting forests and tree to remove excess carbon dioxide from our atmosphere
Reducing fuel emissions associated with motor vehicles
I like the planting approaches.
-----------------------------------

Frank Wimberly

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

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

Phone (505) 670-9918

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Merle,

I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.

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: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
To: Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Dave writes:

< 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.>
Tom writes:

< So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? >

Side effects is a good way to look at it. No drug that works doesn't have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do its thing.

Marcus
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Tom Johnson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential alternative.)
Tom Johnson

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well we certainly agree on that.

So should we put it before the Jury?

N

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 12:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

123