Warren and Honorable Forum:
As anyone knows who might remember (no reason they should, hence this
reminder) my past postings, I am a big fan of the Precautionary Principle.
As long as we get cleaner air and healthier oceans (but not switchgrass
monocultures--remember how rubber rabbitbush was going to solve all our
rubber problems and eliminate our dependence upon foreign sources and how
jojoba plantations were going to make us all rich who could buy a piece of
cheap, worthless, undeveloped desert and reduce our dependence upon foreign
oil?), and that the actions taken do not themselves exacerbate other
problems, I'm all for it. If we're wrong, however, I'm not entirely
comfortable that the surviving remnants of our [descendents] will not
condemn us for not basing expensive and destructive public policies and
actions upon the best possible scientific data, analysis, and conclusions.
I do agree with Warren in principle, with this caveat, but I'm not at all
sure that the "cure" will either be effective at all (especially given the
scale involved). It may be that the axe will have to fall and the survivors
of our profligacy, if any, will have to eke out a living on a greatly
impoverished earth.
WT
(Warren, we gotta have another beer sometime.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren W. Aney" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
In the face of uncertainty with potential consequences of great magnitude,
the precautionary approach should rule. Under this approach it is safer and
more prudent to take effective action to counter climate change than it is
to take no action and risk its effects. The costs of taking action are
high, but there are also benefits (cleaner air and healthier oceans, for
example). The costs of not taking action are potentially catastrophic.
Our ancestors will enjoy an improved world and thank us for taking action
even if they determine we were wrong. Our surviving ancestors will condemn
us if we took no action and this proved to be wrong.
I know, this is rhetoric and not science, but I have frequently had to deal
with decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty and this is the
approach I finally learned to apply or recommend.
Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, OR 97223
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hal Caswell
Sent: Sunday, 20 March, 2011 15:12
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Wayne,
Whether it's a "trick" question or not depends, of course, on the details.
However, if you really want information about the "direct and indirect
effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change" you could not do better
than to start with the 4th IPCC report. This is freely available to anyone
with internet access at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
It represents the output of the largest scientific collaboration in history.
Each volume is prefaced by a summary for policy-makers which is purposely
designed to be accessible to non-specialists. Most policy-makers are not,
after all, scientists.
As you know, one of the essential aspects of any scientific endeavor,
especially one with serious policy implications, is uncertainty. Another
advantage of the IPCC reports is that they have developed the most explicit
quantification of uncertainty for such a large body of scientific work that
has ever been attempted. The disadvantage of that approach is that they
tend to be slanted towards underestimating effects rather than
overestimating them. So, read it as a conservative assessment.
Hal Caswell
On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
James and Ecolog:
No, it's not a "trick" question, it's an honest plea for better, more
convincing information about quantification of the direct and indirect
effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change. "The public at large" has
an even tougher time sorting out the scientific sheep from the goats, on
this and other issues in science. It may be a tough question, but there's
nothing tricky about it.
The plenitude of data is the problem, not the solution. The problem is
credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of "the public."
"Scientists" tend to come off as elitist, patronizing snobs who decry the
"dumbing-down" of we, the unwashed (if not unclean) through the only media
to which we have access, e.g., TV and the Internet. Scientists sit on their
hands and let these media get by with incredible distortions of science. I
have tried to raise these issues to the scientific community, only to hear a
deafening silence, or at best, diversionary mumbling about how we should
accept "scientific" conclusions uncritically. The minute we ask critical
questions (some say this is the root of science), we get condescension and
the doors to further enquiry are slammed shut in our faces.
With all due respect to climate change, for example, we, the unscientific,
dumbed-down rabble who dare to enquire beyond unconditional faith in
accepting what we are told by "science" are immediately classified as
"deniers" (we of little faith) if we question the dictum of the day. We know
a straw-man fallacy when we're hit with one, whether or not we can
articulate it. This adversely affects the credibility of science in general
and the subset in question in particular. We do not, for example, question
whether or not there IS an anthropogenic factor in climate change phenomena,
we just want to be able to start at the generalizations and follow a clear
trail of the supporting chain of evidence as far as we care to.
The "scientific" conclusions get all mixed up with each other, and we're
trying to sort out the well-founded from the unfounded. Are, for example, we
being switchgrassed into submitting to a wholesale acceptance of "renewable
fuels" and "biofuels" and "carbon credits," or are these THE solution to
switching off our apps? Is our concern that the part of "science" we are
allowed to see is leading us down a gardening path where we destroy more and
more complex, diverse ecosystems to plant (and presumably irrigate,
fertilize, and maintain) switchgrass or corn or soybeans until now common
species are forced onto the endangered species list and habitats are
homogenized?
So if you mean by "trick" that you see more than meets the eye, I would
have to (just did) say aye, I agree. In fact, I don't see how a brief,
direct, simple, singular question or two could possibly be interpreted as
tricky--unless we are so used to obfuscatory convolutions that we become
suspicious of said questions.
What I hoped for is a simple, direct answer that reflects an as honest and
complete an answer to the question as possible from those who have already
analyzed the data as possible--i.e. with as little equivocation as possible.
I had hoped to get individual responses that would demonstrate the
hypothesis that the world climate is going to hell in a handbasket because
of human activity and that it wouldn't boil or freeze if humans just stopped
(just what?). While I am very grateful for those who took the time to send
links and references, I had hoped for a simply-stated conclusion along with
that support, I must conclude, in agreement with James, that ". . . there
are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends that are
consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of good
logic supports anthropogenic climate change," I do not agree with his
statement ("What more could a realistic person want?"). A realistic
(scientific?) person wants conclusions based on sound analysis supported by
solid data (or as solid as possible, revealing the amount of "slop" or
"fudge" at the outset). For the very reason Roper cites, absolutely firm
conclusions without any envelope of uncertainty is ipso facto suspicious.
That's where the questioning, not the denying, comes from.
James' question is a reasonable one; I tried to avoid elaboration in my
perhaps-too-brief initial post, but I was not trying to be tricky. I hope
this helps to clarify what seems to me (for the moment) any doubts about any
"hidden agendas." I am not a "climate-change denier," I fully understand
that there is an anthropogenic effect on the climate--I just don't know
whether the science to date over- or under-estimates that effect, and
conversely, how much other factors influence potential outcomes. follow-up
questions: What do we need to know that we don't know? Or do we know
everything we need to know? What are the solutions? What are the effects of
those solutions on ecosystems? How can scientists increase public confidence
rather than tear it down?
WT
PS: Thanks so much to those of you who have responded with solid
references and well-thought-out responses, including James.
----- Original Message -----
From: James J. Roper
To: Wayne Tyson
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Wayne, isn't somewhat of a trick question? I mean, in science, we have a
tough time saying that anything except the trivial is unequivocal.
Also, is it even theoretically possible to unequivocally demonstrate a
difference in climate due to natural or to human causes? Especially when
they are operating simultaneously..... And, as for prediction, I have yet to
see models that based on the past do well at predicting the present, in
both, natural and human dominated systems.
However, there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends
that are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of
good logic supports anthropogenic climate change. What more could a
realistic person want?
Cheers,
Jim
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:42, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi all,
Can anyone tell me or direct me to a source that can tell me
unequivocally and quantitatively what the direct and indirect effects of
human influence are and are projected to be compared to the "background" or
"natural" influences with respect to global temperature changes and
predicted states?
Is there any information on the conditions of life in the past which
match those states and their probable causes?
WT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sudhir Raj Shrestha"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Hi Steve,
In addition to Ben's comprehensive list, I will suggest you to look at
NOAA's new (still prototype, we are working on it) climate portal.
www.climate.gov
Thanks,
Sudhir Shrestha
--- On Tue, 3/15/11, Benjamin White <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Benjamin White <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
To: [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 6:17 PM
Steve,
Contrary to adopting the approach of utilizing dumbed-down on-line
climate tutorials, I find that the easiest way to initially engage
interested parties is to refer them to "summaries for decision makers" and
to content-rich web sites. Here you will often find scientific or policy
organizations' bottom line ref. findings, data and methods.
Consider, perhaps, some climate findings, reports and resources from:
- a summary of global environment, including climate:
http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/GEO4%20SDM_launch.pdf (GEO5 will soon be
out and it is my personal expectation that climate change will be cast in a
slightly different light)
-
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
#1
and
http://www.ipcc..ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessmen
t_report_synthesis_report.htm
- Geenhouse gas, etc. data: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php
- CCSP provides an umbrella for US data data on climate change:
http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php
(e.g.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/final-report/default..htm)
- CIESIN and SEDAC provide a wealth of material, particular on the
human dimensions of climate change e.g. the Geographic Distribution of
Climate Change Vulnerability. A review of their site is will definitely
stimulate discussion:
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/index.html
Some selected readings from the IPCC4 report, along with figures, etc.
should be a good place to start. There are always developments in the realm
of climate science that are worth consideration (for example, modeling the
influence of grassroots climate change mitigation efforts). A review of the
some of the contemporary articles in Nature, Science, New Scientist (their
"ask a climate scientist" blog is really "cool":
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/12/ask-a-climate-sc
ientist.html) etc. will likely provide material for a significantly enriched
discussion. You are correct to be wary of data or findings from
organizations which lack scientific objectivity.
***I am sure other people on the list will be able to add to the
suggested sites above.
Cheers,
--Ben White
---- Original message ----
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:01:40 -0400
From: Steven Roes <[email protected]>
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
To: <[email protected]>
Hi All,
I'm preparing to teach few days on climate change to my high school
living
environment students. We are nearing the conclusion of our ecology
unit,
and they've been soaking up the material like sponges--I've been
incredibly
happy to see thier progress as an entire group.
I'm working on researching for these few days climate change, and I'm
in
need of trustworthy data with some discussion that, ideally, my
students can
understand. If necessary, I can work to translate any discussion to
more
appropriate language.
Could any of you point me in the direction of where to find
non-biased
information on the issue of climate change and rising CO2 levels that
is
worthy of presenting?
Thanks in advance for your help,
Steve Roes
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
---------------------------------
Hal Caswell
Senior Scientist
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole MA 02543
508-289-2751
[email protected]
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
