I'm also a big fan of James Lovelock. Interesting that he changed his views on climate change dramatically. I refer to an interview The Guardian newspaper had with him recently ( www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over). I quote: "What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.” "
On 30 December 2017 at 07:25, Carl Tollander <c...@plektyx.com> wrote: > I would rather, > than worry directly about the predictability of the climate models we > currently have vs the population/variety/intitial conclusions of > researchers from decades ago, > that we instead consider a range of climate risks, their consequences, > our responses/adaptations, and their consequences. > The latter may prepare us, and it moves that portion of the science along > in any case, and may yet eventually show up any deficiencies in the former, > but let's get underway. > > Personally, I'm with Lovelock on the large grain future: the window of > action gets progressively smaller the longer we delay, and that the world > will likely experience > a "massive reduction in carrying capacity" (that's a euphemism) over the > next century. Looking at older cultures and how they survive, mutate, > die or flourish in analogous upheavals (e.g. mid-8th-century China or > black-death eras in Europe) might be worthwhile at this point. Start by > assuming the fan/speed/blades and what/who hits it; what can/should we DO? > We should at least perhaps understand when we are waiting too long to begin > adaptations that are cheap, safe, economic or politically acceptable, for > Nature bats last. > > Hope y'all like mosquitoes. > > カール > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> > wrote: > >> Nick writes: >> >> >> < IF climate models cannot "predict" past anomalies, why should we trust >> them now? > >> >> >> The European weather model assimilates 50+ types of measurements in space >> and time, including satellite data. Obviously, these measurements were >> not possible except in the last few decades, never mind in the middle ages >> or before humans. So whether or not there were even particular kinds of >> climate anomalies is a subject of some debate. For example, were those >> periods wet or were they warm? Were they uniform across the global or >> localized to certain regions? >> >> >> Marcus >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> on behalf of Nick Thompson < >> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> *Sent:* Friday, December 29, 2017 8:27:21 PM >> *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change >> >> I dunno, I thought Pietr's point was kind of interesting. IF (and I >> don't know if the condition is met) ... IF climate models cannot "predict" >> past anomalies, why should we trust them now? Or did somebody already >> answer that. >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> Clark University >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com <friam-boun...@redfish.com>] >> On Behalf Of u?l? ? >> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM >> To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change >> >> Well, I mean "models" writ large. Even when gathering and reducing >> observational data, there's a workflow for doing that. That workflow relies >> on a model of a sort. And integrating different data sets so that they're >> commensurate also requires models. E.g. correlating tree ring based with >> other climate data. >> >> But you're ultimately right. It's not so much about the models as it is >> the whole inferential apparatus one *might* use to drive policy decisions, >> including huge populations of expert climatologists. There's probably a >> correlation to be drawn between people who distrust government and those >> who distrust the "scientific establishment" and/or the "deep state". >> People tend to obey/trust whoever they regard as authority figures (e.g. >> greater shocks to another if a person in a lab coat tells you to do it). >> Those of us who inherently distrust authority figures have a particular >> psychological bent and our impulse can go the other way. It could be >> because we know how groups can succumb to bias, or how errors get >> propagated (e.g. peer review), or whatever. >> >> *That* is why I think focusing on the workflows (modeling) is important. >> Those of us who distrust the experts bear the burden of proof. Hence, we >> have to really dig in and find the flaw in the experts' thinking. To do >> otherwise is irrational. >> >> Those of us who can delegate and tend to trust experts only need to dig >> in when/if a skeptic produces a defensible counter-argument. If all a >> skeptic has to offer are blanket generalizations about human error or >> whatnot, then it seems rational to ignore that doubt and go with the >> conclusions of the experts. >> >> If Pieter knows of a specific flaw in the way the experts do their work, >> then it would be a valuable contribution. >> >> On 12/29/2017 12:41 PM, Jochen Fromm wrote: >> > IMO it is not about models. Models are complicated and controversial. >> Climate change in the artic is a fact, melting arctic ice is a fact, >> melting glaciers is a fact. In the arctic regions we can oberve the rising >> temperatures most clearly. >> >> >> -- >> ☣ uǝlƃ >> >> ============================================================ >> 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-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 >> 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 >> 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 > 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 FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
