Re: climate change questions
Posted by Prof David West on Jan 01, 2020; 7:33pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/climate-change-questions-tp7594117p7594129.html
an anonymous source tossed this across my transom a bit ago. Worth sharing I think
davew
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:29 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nick,
>
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it
> is the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even
> more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to
> respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in
> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
> > challenge.
> >
> > What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
> > somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
> > and human activity? By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
> > engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter. Because,
> > if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
> > human reach.
> >
> > So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
> > stated. They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
> > bad as they were predicted to be. Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
> > that in fact Things are worse. The only specific data I feel I have been
> > exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting. But even
> > there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
> > my own. So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
> > am talking about. Ugh!
> >
> > I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern: what
> > we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
> > is increases in year-to-year climate variability. You can grow rape seed in
> > Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
> > supporting these two crops will move north. But what happens if one year
> > the climate demands one crop and the next the other? And the switch from
> > one to the other is entirely unpredictable. Anybody who plants a garden
> > knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
> > your garden: first frost and last frost. The average frost free period in
> > my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
> > 90. And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
> > dates in June and first frost dates in early September. It would take a
> > very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
> > something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
> > wasteplot.
> >
> > I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
> > a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
> > I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
> > ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent on that
> > anomalous stability. The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
> > agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it. The whole
> > idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
> > same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
> > or less the same thing. A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
> > would obliterate that possibility.
> >
> > If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
> > are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
> > scare the Living Crap out of you.
> >
> > The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
> > and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
> > harvested for the long run.
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> > Clark University
> > [hidden email]
> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions
> >
> > Questions, that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
> > change.
> >
> > In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
> > of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
> > Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
> > Fahrenheit by 2020.
> >
> > The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
> > increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
> > being 3-5 by the year 2020.
> >
> > The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.
> >
> > The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
> > domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.
> >
> > The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.
> >
> > Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
> > argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
> > incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
> > over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
> > simply "circulation" motives.
> >
> > In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
> > expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?
> >
> > Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
> > "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"
> >
> > Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
> > scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
> > socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?
> >
> > Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
> > do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
> > chances?
> >
> > davew
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> >
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/climate-change-questions-tp7594117p7594129.html
an anonymous source tossed this across my transom a bit ago. Worth sharing I think
davew
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 8:29 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Nick,
>
> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it
> is the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even
> more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to
> respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in
> nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them as a
> > challenge.
> >
> > What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if
> > somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate change
> > and human activity? By what process, with what attitudes, by what rules of
> > engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that matter. Because,
> > if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement would seem to be beyond
> > human reach.
> >
> > So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as
> > stated. They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not as
> > bad as they were predicted to be. Yet, I find, I am inclined to believe
> > that in fact Things are worse. The only specific data I feel I have been
> > exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial melting. But even
> > there, I would be hard pressed to match your specific references to any of
> > my own. So, I guess the conclusion is, I disagree, but I don't know what I
> > am talking about. Ugh!
> >
> > I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern: what
> > we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term climate warming,
> > is increases in year-to-year climate variability. You can grow rape seed in
> > Canada and maize in the US, and as the climate alters, the bands of climate
> > supporting these two crops will move north. But what happens if one year
> > the climate demands one crop and the next the other? And the switch from
> > one to the other is entirely unpredictable. Anybody who plants a garden
> > knows that only two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of
> > your garden: first frost and last frost. The average frost free period in
> > my garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short as
> > 90. And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had last frost
> > dates in June and first frost dates in early September. It would take a
> > very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn my garden from
> > something that could support life for a year in New England into a 30 x 50
> > wasteplot.
> >
> > I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the Holocene, is
> > a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in climate VARIABILITY.
> > I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the last
> > ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent on that
> > anomalous stability. The neanderthals were not too stupid to do
> > agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it. The whole
> > idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make more or less the
> > same kind of living by staying more or less in the same place and doing more
> > or less the same thing. A return to Pleistocene year-to-year variation
> > would obliterate that possibility.
> >
> > If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global Warming-- we
> > are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by God, I think I could
> > scare the Living Crap out of you.
> >
> > The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do it,
> > and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's value could be
> > harvested for the long run.
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > Nick
> >
> > Nicholas Thompson
> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> > Clark University
> > [hidden email]
> > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions
> >
> > Questions, that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate
> > change.
> >
> > In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because
> > of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 degrees
> > Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 degrees
> > Fahrenheit by 2020.
> >
> > The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature
> > increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations
> > being 3-5 by the year 2020.
> >
> > The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100.
> >
> > The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end of
> > domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020.
> >
> > The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree.
> >
> > Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate,
> > argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly
> > incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, and
> > over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or
> > simply "circulation" motives.
> >
> > In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone
> > expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush?
> >
> > Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the proposed
> > "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?"
> >
> > Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon
> > scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human
> > socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them?
> >
> > Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, how
> > do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our
> > chances?
> >
> > davew
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
> >
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
ModelLand.pdf (875K) | Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |