An interesting corollary to that is that is that exponentials exceed even their own internal response times,... Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: David Mirly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:33:24 To:The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Edge: The Need for Heretics I can't remember the source (sorry) but I do remember some "expert" saying that the problem isn't just that the climate is warming. We've already pointed out the the Earth has been much hotter than it is now. He said the problem is that it is warming up too fast (because of human activity) and the ecosystem isn't able to adapt as fast. He gave specific examples including the current average temperature rate change at various latitudes and correlated that with the migration speed of plants, insects, etc. and said the additional velocity we have added makes the temperature change outpace the migration speed of the organisms. On the other hand, the Earth has gone through significant climate changes before and life has a way of adapting and surviving. The problem from some peoples perspective is that the surviving organisms may not include humans. For others, that might not be a problem. ;) Personally I have enough "evidence" to have the following conclusions. 1) The Earth's climate is changing at a rate that we can observe in our lifetime or at least observe within a couple of generations or so. 2) It would be wise to attempt to minimize our impacts on such a complex system when we don't even partially understand the consequences. 3) As a whole we are not interested and/or too stupid to minimize our impact. At least until it's too late. On Aug 12, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote: > Robert Holmes wrote: >> But then the rational part of me recognizes that you probably do get >> far more bang for your buck (in social welfare terms) with these >> problems: they are (relatively) well understood and interventions >> have >> a rapid effect on a huge number of people. In contrast, climate >> control is poorly understood and it takes decades to measure the >> effect. Where would you put your limited $$? > It depends what's measured. Climate control may be hard to measure > and > correlate to mitigation efforts but output of CO2 can be identified, > measured, and mitigated. > Further it matters what the question is. For example, if someone > owns > valuable coastal property that risks being underwater in a century, > they > might well care about the impact on their grandkids more than what > happens to someone they don't know on the other side of the planet. > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
