Well, one eventually gets 3m from the West Antarctica collapse alone, if
that happens. However there are other
possibly-soon-to-be-not-so-frozen bits on the planet (Greenland, the
Arctic, other parts of Antarctica, etc) which are outside that
particular study. So one could imagine 3m to be conservative. Even one
foot would certainly command a certain quality of attention. And with
most of these kinds of predictions, the consequences seem to be
back-loaded. Warmer oceans of greater surface area will have other
effects one could be concerned about if so inclined.
Nature bats last, as least far as the South China Sea is concerned.
So, there ya go. I read science articles to get a greater sense of
interconnectedness, unexpected interactions between events, rather than
some clear policy decisions. This leads me to a more "what kinds of
principled studies could you do that would lead to more coherent
models", or "what is the space of coherent models" rather than just
adding to the mass of data.
Carl
On 11/2/15 6:12 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
Sorry, misquoted the abstract in a particularly alarming way by
paraphrasing journalistic sources: 60 years of continuing
destabilization of the Amundsen Basin, as is currently being observed,
leads to a subsequent collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and an
eventual 3m sea rise.
-- rec --
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
speaking of crash and burn, you all caught the PNAS early release
today,
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/28/1512482112.abstract?sid=6a257104-4e5a-45e0-ad64-03d3b03c8f43,
anticipating 3m sea rise in the next 60 years, and no sign of
anything to be done at this point?
-- rec --
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:24 PM, glen <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
At first, I struggled to find something to argue with. But I
finally found it!
On 11/02/2015 02:33 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Even though I was trained as a Scientist (especially
though?) I find it impossible to do enough research on any
"popular" topic to even pretend to understand the issue
and data well enough to make a "scientific decision". I
think those who "pretend" to do so are rarely being
honest. As those here who have actually *done* science,
know, it is far from trivial to really track down all the
data and reproduce all of the experiments, etc. to begin
to "prove anything" to oneself.
But one can't actually *do* science. Science is a collective
thing, perhaps even an entraining thing. While there are
plenty who admit that it's mostly a behavior, the requirements
for repetition and prediction preclude any individual from
*doing* science. At best, we can only *participate*. We
can't _do_ it. We can only _be_ it.
So, while I agree with your arching conclusion (that one --
you -- does not make "scientific decisions"), I disagree that
it's because one hasn't done enough research. I can do so
_without_ agreeing with the reasoning by which you reached
your conclusion. It's because "scientific decisions" is a
contradiction in terms. Decisions are intra-individual,
cognitive things, whereas science is an inter-individual
collective thing.
This bears directly on Nick's topic, I think ... the ability
to disagree with reasoning but agree with conclusions.
Beyond that, I try to operate on as "fundamental" of
principles as possible. Since you used the topic of diet
and the eating of meat as an example, I will admit to
having chosen to be a vegetarian from age 15-32 when I was
essentially "boycotting" the meat *industry* which I saw
as an exploitative and abusive industry. I currently
follow the general guidelines of "paleo" living...
entrusting my genetic heritage to define "what is best for
me". With that in mind, I suspect that not only is meat
important to my diet, it is probably also important for it
to come to me infrequently and in somewhat binging
quantities... a good eating strategy *might* be a big
juicy steak or three once every couple of weeks and a LOT
of green and tuberous vegetables. I *do* respond to the
more complex and well researched ideas that are based in
the indigenous diets of various cultures (some eat a LOT
Of animal protein/fat while others eat almost none).
This likely means you responded to Owen's and Nick's form
follows function arguments, too, right? Or do you allow for
layers of removal between form and function?
To balance this, however, I believe that even if/as we
crash and burn in our own greenhouse gas-heating, we will
almost surely survive the consequences, albeit after a
huge period of adjustment.
I find this belief the most interesting. Apophenically, it
seems techies tend to think this way. They're also the most
likely to think we can invent our way out of various
calamaties. They tend to be more tolerant of the ill-effects
of any given technology (or technique). Etc. But I see a
similar aspect with non-techie yet methodical people... people
who can cook, for example, seem to be able to come up with
good meals despite bare cabinets and fridge contents. People
who can paint (or have other visual imagination) seem to see
things others don't. Etc.
So, from that, I infer that one's generalized ability to solve
problems (generalized from one or more domains in which they
are plastic/resourceful) gives them the optimism that they
will find solutions, even in the face of uncertainty and a
lack of reliable data.
--
⇔ glen
============================================================
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
============================================================
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
============================================================
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
