[FRIAM] climate change questions

Wed Jan 1 13:55:53 EST 2020

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

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

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

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 11:27 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
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 <wimberly3 at gmail.com <mailto:wimberly3 at gmail.com> > 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 <thompnickson2 at gmail.com <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> > 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
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> 
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> > On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
To: friam at redfish.com <mailto:friam at redfish.com> 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200101/ccbe4167/attachment.html>