[FRIAM] climate change questions

Thu Jan 2 16:45:03 EST 2020

Between 1990 and 2000 I owned 40 acres of Piñon-Juniper land about 90 miles
south of Santa Fe. I recently saw an item about a highly effective carbon
sequestration grass.  It has stiff leaves about 3 or 4 feet long.  For a
moment I thought that I should have planted that stuff there.  Then I
realized that watering it would be a severe problem.  Wells there produce a
maximum of 16 gallons of water per minute.  The neighbors would have been
annoyed since they wouldn't have bought the carbon argument.

-----------------------------------
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 Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 2:00 PM David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu> wrote:

> And not only forests.
>
> Restructure agriculture.  The perennial polyculture concept for which Wes
> Jackson founded the Land Institute
> https://landinstitute.org/
> Is meant to base farming on a cropping system with the structure of a
> prairie sod.  Either farmland or prairie may have 1/2 meter to 2m of annual
> stem and leaf mass above ground.  But farmland today has a few 10s of cm
> (if that) of annual subsurface root.  The prairie sods of the Great Plains,
> before being plowed up, could have 2m depth of perennial root mass.  In
> addition to greater capacity to absorb water from episodic rain and deliver
> it under conditions of drought, it retains nutrients, reducing inputs with
> their energy waste, and runoff.  2m doesn’t seem so much compared to a
> tree, but if one multiplies this by the area currently under commodity
> cropping, it may amount to more carbon than the part of the US currently
> under forest.
>
> I like to think of forest and grassland as part of a whole nutrient-shed
> pipeline.  Trees mine the deep rock in ways that herbs can’t, and the leaf
> litter is a surface deposit at the margins of prairie basins.  The
> grasslands can depend on the flux of that rare material, recycling along
> the way, as it runs eventually to the continental drainage as the
> biotically augmented part of continental weathering.
>
> These kinds of redesigns are whole-system oriented, and really have to be
> understood, I think, in the language of public goods.  So we are looking at
> government, civil society, culture, or something to coordinate and require
> a system restructure.
>
> The idea that “there’s no way we can get these sociopathic bastards to do
> anything” is I think a reflection of the luxury of not yet being scared.
> The sailors haven’t stopped swearing because they don’t realize the ship is
> in trouble.  There is a wonderful documentary
>
> https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-power-of-community-how-cuba-survived-peak-oil-2006/
> about the restructuring of Cuban agriculture when oil suddenly
> disappeared, and also international credit, on a span of months surrounding
> the disassembly of the former Soviet Union.  All of a sudden, for the
> people, it was “change or starve”.  For the government it was “change or
> get your head chopped off in a revolution”.  Remarkable how choices like
> that suddenly opened the possibility space, both for single actors as
> smallholders, and for the government as an aid and coordinator rather than
> an impediment.  Japan and Australia contributed a little bit in the way of
> resources and know-how, but most fo the credit goes to Cuban agronomic and
> medical knowledge that was already resident and just needing support to be
> better deployed.  The best thing about the Cuban story is that it doesn’t
> distill down into sound bites.  The restructure was complex, with to-task
> decisions of many kinds needing to be made.  And there was no starvation
> and no revolution.  They came through it nutritionally at least as well-off
> as they had started, if somewhat less overfed on fast calories and pork.
>
> I am brought back again to Ortega y Gasset’s argument that cultures
> collapse because ideas that were once real and tied to the substance of
> living become conventionalized to topics, phrases, and empty repetition of
> others rather than understandings held by oneself of concrete problems that
> need solving.  We envision the possibilities too much in terms of the
> habits of people around us because they are stubborn and we don’t see the
> levers to move them.  Glen is right, too: when everything about the society
> around you makes waste the available method, it requires a kind of proteus
> to invent a whole survivable life for himself with new methods.  There are
> such people, but it consumes all of their effort just to live without
> harm.  If a society makes more non-damaging ways of doing things available,
> ordinary people have the option of living with less harm, and the proteuses
> in one or another domain have some spare energy to try to extend what is
> possible, rather than just tread water.
>
> Anyway,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think he should say reducing greenhouse gases and
>
> Other mitigation strategies include:
>
>    - Improving the energy efficiency of buildings to reduce emissions
>    from heating/cooling
>    - Planting forests and tree to remove excess carbon dioxide from our
>    atmosphere
>    - Reducing fuel emissions associated with motor vehicles
>
> I like the planting approaches.
> -----------------------------------
>
>
> 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 Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Merle,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>>
>> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM
>> *To:* Tom Johnson <tom at jtjohnson.com>; The Friday Morning Applied
>> Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions
>>
>>
>>
>> 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> on behalf of Tom Johnson <
>> tom at jtjohnson.com>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> 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> 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
>> 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 12:30 PM
>> To: 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 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
>> >
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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/20200102/34b38e7d/attachment.html>