[FRIAM] climate change questions

Wed Jan 1 13:27:02 EST 2020

>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> 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> 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
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM
>> To: 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/20200101/9c8096ef/attachment.html>