>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 <wimber...@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 <thompnicks...@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 >> thompnicks...@gmail.com >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM >> To: friam@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
