[FRIAM] climate change questions

Thu Jan 2 13:12:12 EST 2020

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 <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Merle Lefkoff <merlelefkoff at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:48 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions

And what treatment do you suggest, Marcus?

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 9:46 AM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> 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 <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Tom Johnson <tom at jtjohnson.com<mailto:tom at jtjohnson.com>>
Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com<mailto:friam at redfish.com>>
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 <thompnickson2 at gmail.com<mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com>> 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
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 12:30 PM
To: friam at redfish.com<mailto:friam at redfish.com>
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, 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

--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org<http://emergentdiplomacy.org>
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
merlelefkoff at gmail.com<mailto:merlelefoff at gmail.com>
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200102/ee1d8f67/attachment.html>