[FRIAM] climate change questions

Wed Jan 1 15:12:13 EST 2020

Nick writes:

< Some comments: as a higher-life-form chauvinist, to join you in your opinion, I would have first to assume that human beings didn’t end their existence with a nuclear … um … event. >

That's so 20th century.

< Second, I guess I am not a utilitarian, because I keep thinking of my grandchildren.  I don’t think anybody with grand children can take your rational position to heart. >

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to write them a check to build their technology platform.

Marcus
________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of thompnickson2 at gmail.com <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:59 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

Marcus,

I haven’t known a Marxist for many years, but I think this corresponds to a dictum of Marxist thought: Stop Feeding the Dinosaur!

That may, of course, be the best utilitarian strategy, the strategy with the least suffering in the long run.  Some comments: as a higher-life-form chauvinist, to join you in your opinion, I would have first to assume that human beings didn’t end their existence with a nuclear … um … event.  Second, I guess I am not a utilitarian, because I keep thinking of my grandchildren.  I don’t think anybody with grand children can take your rational position to heart.

Whatever “heart” is.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

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

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

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:45 PM
To: doug carmichael <doug at dougcarmichael.com>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

________________________________

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of doug carmichael <doug at dougcarmichael.com<mailto:doug at dougcarmichael.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com<mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

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

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

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 11:26 AM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm<mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm>> wrote:

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

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

davew

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

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

doug

On Jan 1, 2020, at 10:55 AM, <thompnickson2 at gmail.com<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> <thompnickson2 at gmail.com<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> 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

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

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

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto: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<mailto: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

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

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200101/cd0909cb/attachment.html>