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]> 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]> 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
