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 conseque
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, ne
Steve, I had hoped for awhile that climate change studies would yield the
possibility of a truly transdisciplinary breakthrough in complex systems
modeling, rather than the interdisciplinary effort you recall that provided
"useful checks and balances" on academic honestly. I take it from the
threa
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 Biolo
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 oth
Pieter -
I think Eric responded extremely well to the actual gist of the (bent)
thread on Climate Change as it was elaborating.
The (thread's subject) question of whether there is significant
anthropogenic climate changes underway, the extent of them, how bad the
consequences are likely to be (
Hippos in Cologne? Well... Some countries like Russia may think climate change
is good because it is too cold there anyway. But the effects would be
devastating on a global scale.
IMO it is not about models. Models are complicated and controversial. Climate
change in the artic is a fact, meltin
No. I was truly asking. Sorry if I came off like I know something you don't.
I did try to keep up with the open sourced climate models I knew about, but
never managed to do it. This might be a good resource:
https://climate.apache.org/
On 12/29/2017 11:45 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> Ma
Maybe I do not appreciate fully how the models have evolved since 1990. I
have studied the reports and even for me it's it'd very complicated. Do you
mind giving me a simple explanation of what you are referring to?
On 29 December 2017 at 21:28, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> I agree that admitting one's mist
I agree that admitting one's mistakes and specifying (honest) uncertainty lends
credibility. But, as Eric says in his recent post, expressions of uncertainty
can be abused, as well. In this regard, scientists face a very difficult
dilemma.
It's interesting to consider a topic just as controve
Sorry; it would have helped if I had spelled your name correctly the first time.
Hurry is not of God,
Eric
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:18 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> By all means. I do not intend either aggression or even disrespect toward
> anybody who will argue any position hone
Hi Peter,
By all means. I do not intend either aggression or even disrespect toward
anybody who will argue any position honestly and in good faith.
The thing that I was attacking below, and which I think needs to be regarded as
an existential threat, is what I interpret as coordinated acting i
Thank you, I do appreciate.
Let me start with my background. I have done modeling for predictions in
engineering applications as a major part of my professional career of 40
years. I am now doing deep learning for making predictions. (Not
necessarily relevant to this discussion, but I do combine A
Yes, I think so. The trick, I think, is to demonstrate respect for those with
whom we disagree. If someone posts, without rancor, an argument (preferably
with data) arguing that the models are wrong in a crucial way, I know *I* would
be interested.
I've posted tons of contrarian and stubborn,
Is it possible to have, in this group, a civil discussion where the
accepted view of the IPCC that unless we reduce CO2 emissions we are
heading for disaster is challenged?
On 29 December 2017 at 20:25, Eric Smith wrote:
> I agree with both Glen and Jillian,
>
> this is more on the right tack.
I agree with both Glen and Jillian,
this is more on the right tack. It’s not about stupidity. It’s about a kind
of character degeneracy further down, and a certain kind of vileness that
becomes possible at that level.
I would add one thing to Jill’s and Glen’s emphasis (attention trolling),
And BTW, I don't merely mean "provoke", in a vapid way. I still believe Trump
and people like him, consciously or not, speak in ways such that the audience
or other discussants will fill in the blanks, themselves (as Lakoff pointed
out). Similar techniques are "dog whistling" and poetry. This
Sorry. A draft has gone.
On Friday, December 29, 2017, Alfredo Covaleda Vélez
wrote:
> A couple of years ago was published that about simulations predicting
permanent freezing un Europeos and North America because of global warming.
>
> On Friday, December 29, 2017, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>> This i
A couple of years ago was published that about simulations predicting
permanent freezing un Europeos and North America because of global warming.
On Friday, December 29, 2017, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
> "In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Ev
A couple of years ago It was published about simulations predicting
permanent freezing in Europe and North America because of global warming.
So, maybe Trump is right.You are welcome here but we are already too much
people un the third world.
On Friday, December 29, 2017, Jochen Fromm wrote:
> Th
You called it, Gillian. Trump and his ilk (Milo, Spencer, etc.) thrive on
their ability to invoke. Beliefs and knowledge take a back seat, which is why
they are so capable of munging the facts and changing their tune when
confronted.
So I have to disagree fundamentally with Nick, Merle, Tom,
Tom writes:
"I think, too, it is a fundamental issue of education, or lack of it, in the
U.S."
Over the holidays, I ran into an individual who had the benefit of educated
relatives all through their childhood and nonetheless has persisted with the
same reactionary views for the last 30 years.
Maybe it is the effect of a "confirmation bias". He sees somewhere on Fox News
that the weather will be really cold, and thinks this confirms his theory that
global warming is a hoax - although we all know that climate and weather are
different, and that climate change is real.
https://en.wikip
He is one of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
The games I enjoy have a zero tollerance pollicy for trolls. The giant jerk
kind that just want attention. Generally the community ignores them. Then a
Game Assistant bans them. Then that company shows other companies about the
probl
I think, too, it is a fundamental issue of education, or lack of it, in the
U.S. For example, scientists say, "Well, yes, the global or ocean
temperatures are expected to increase 1.8 degrees Centigrade." First,
Americas don't understand this centigrade stuff. Second, they think, "
Well, if the
Nick is right. The uneducated (who also vote) do not understand, for
example, that climate events will continue to be more intense, if not more
frequent. And the ambiguity necessary to nonlinear models causes great
confusion. People need certainly and prediction and have been led to
believe scie
This is “our” fault. We have failed to articulate and distribute a language
that adequately relates changes in probabilities of events with changes in
particular events. We say that “harvey” was caused by global warming, but then
we bridle when senators carry snowballs into congress. Yes, thi
Yes, he’s really that stupid. And is manipulated by people who know better, but
whose short-term interests are best served by pretending global climate change
is a fiction.
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 12:23 AM, Jochen Fromm wrote:
>
> This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:
> "In the East, it
Yes.
I suspect that climate change, including global warming, would require that
locally, in some locations, colder than normal conditions would occur.
Frank
Frank Wimberly
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2
Phone (505) 670-9918
On Dec 29, 2017 1:23 AM, "Jochen Fromm" w
This is what Donald wrote on Twitter tonight:"In the East, it could be the
COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that
good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to
pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle
up!"https://
30 matches
Mail list logo
