Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Carl Tollander]

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 
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  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 ]
> On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
> To: FriAM 
> 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
>
> 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Marcus Daniels]

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  on behalf of Nick Thompson 

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] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
To: FriAM 
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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Merle Lefkoff]

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
thread that my hope has not yet been realized.  Big sigh.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Steven A Smith  wrote:

> 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 (or already are) to the biosphere, humans,
> more vulnerable (coastal,  limited access to technology, etc.)
> populations, and whether "we" care are not are all somewhat different
> (if related) questions.
>
> It doesn't surprise me at all that a very low order (linear) model
> (average global (surface?) temperatures) might be this far off... the
> fact that the sense (if not the magnitude) bore out is not insignificant.
>
> When I worked with LANL scientists (oceonographers, atmospheric
> scientists, biologists) in the mid 90's who were trying to build,
> couple, resolve disparate models from these domains to the data (and one
> another), there was very little willingness among them to make any
> strong statement suggesting climate change (much less warming in
> particular).   It was simply too new of a discipline and the data and
> models still seemed way too scant to say as much as *most* of them.
> The inflection (see Marcus' post) in greenhouse gas concentrations began
> about WWII, just 50 years after internal combustion engines were
> invented and had only just begun to have widespread use (especially
> outside of the first world) and i 1990, that trend was a mere 40 years
> old... it is now 70 quite a bit more data to work with?
> Computational science was not new in 1990, but computing power/scale and
> the general science of predictive modeling has made some very
> significant advances in this last 30 years.
>
> Since you work in predictive modeling, you know how hard it is to get
> meaningful results.   In Engineering, we have a *LOT* more control over
> the variables...  so are more able to make meaningful/useful
> predictions.   The evolving global scale biosphere is about as open and
> difficult to establish controlled experiments with as I can imagine...
>
> I worked with another (multi-institutional)group of Scientists who were
> studying Climate Change around 2009.   There was no longer much
> (expressed) doubt among them or their colleagues as to whether data
> supported a strong positive correlation between climate change and
> greenhouse gas concentrations.  If anything, they seemed to have much
> more sophisticated notions of *where* all that might take the climate,
> which included the possibility of tipping into another (mini?) ice age.
> We were studying THIS group to try to understand how new fields emerged
> in Science (NSF grant) and in this case, the opportunities for synergy
> where scientists from one subdomain had useful understandings that
> scientists in other domains could use.   As since each domain had to
> *explain itself* to the others to be effective, they provided a certain
> kind of peer review that is often criticized in canalized, possibly
> insular fields.   While the group was not in any way antagonist with one
> another, they (for their own understanding reasons) questioned one
> another's data, models and assumptions to a strong degree.   This
> interdisciplinary nature of Climate Studies is not a guarantee of
> academic honesty but as (I suspect) with SFI and other Complex Systems
> groups, it does provide some useful checks and balances.
>
> Until the mid 2000s I wanted strongly to believe that a change as
> significant as throwing the entire biosphere/climate into a new dynamic
> balance was beyond human scale... but I came to believe otherwise
> through any number of personal explorations and experiences.  If my
> career or ego-identity depended more on climate change being a hoax or a
> conspiracy, I might still be resisting myself.
>
> - Steve
>
>
>
>
> On 12/29/17 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 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 in bad faith.  By that I mean a sort of dishonesty of motive, where
> the real motive is not at all the wellbeing of anybody on the receiving
> end.  Many tactics go into that: deception, bullying, impoverishment, and
> more overt things.
> >
> > We have a crisis of bad faith in many dimensions, certainly in this
> country 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Nick Thompson]

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] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
To: FriAM 
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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Steven A Smith]

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 (or already are) to the biosphere, humans,
more vulnerable (coastal,  limited access to technology, etc.)
populations, and whether "we" care are not are all somewhat different
(if related) questions.  

It doesn't surprise me at all that a very low order (linear) model
(average global (surface?) temperatures) might be this far off... the
fact that the sense (if not the magnitude) bore out is not insignificant. 

When I worked with LANL scientists (oceonographers, atmospheric
scientists, biologists) in the mid 90's who were trying to build,
couple, resolve disparate models from these domains to the data (and one
another), there was very little willingness among them to make any
strong statement suggesting climate change (much less warming in
particular).   It was simply too new of a discipline and the data and
models still seemed way too scant to say as much as *most* of them.  
The inflection (see Marcus' post) in greenhouse gas concentrations began
about WWII, just 50 years after internal combustion engines were
invented and had only just begun to have widespread use (especially
outside of the first world) and i 1990, that trend was a mere 40 years
old... it is now 70 quite a bit more data to work with?  
Computational science was not new in 1990, but computing power/scale and
the general science of predictive modeling has made some very
significant advances in this last 30 years.  

Since you work in predictive modeling, you know how hard it is to get
meaningful results.   In Engineering, we have a *LOT* more control over
the variables...  so are more able to make meaningful/useful
predictions.   The evolving global scale biosphere is about as open and
difficult to establish controlled experiments with as I can imagine...  

I worked with another (multi-institutional)group of Scientists who were
studying Climate Change around 2009.   There was no longer much
(expressed) doubt among them or their colleagues as to whether data
supported a strong positive correlation between climate change and
greenhouse gas concentrations.  If anything, they seemed to have much
more sophisticated notions of *where* all that might take the climate,
which included the possibility of tipping into another (mini?) ice age. 
We were studying THIS group to try to understand how new fields emerged
in Science (NSF grant) and in this case, the opportunities for synergy
where scientists from one subdomain had useful understandings that
scientists in other domains could use.   As since each domain had to
*explain itself* to the others to be effective, they provided a certain
kind of peer review that is often criticized in canalized, possibly
insular fields.   While the group was not in any way antagonist with one
another, they (for their own understanding reasons) questioned one
another's data, models and assumptions to a strong degree.   This
interdisciplinary nature of Climate Studies is not a guarantee of
academic honesty but as (I suspect) with SFI and other Complex Systems
groups, it does provide some useful checks and balances.

Until the mid 2000s I wanted strongly to believe that a change as
significant as throwing the entire biosphere/climate into a new dynamic
balance was beyond human scale... but I came to believe otherwise
through any number of personal explorations and experiences.  If my
career or ego-identity depended more on climate change being a hoax or a
conspiracy, I might still be resisting myself.

- Steve




On 12/29/17 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 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 in bad 
> faith.  By that I mean a sort of dishonesty of motive, where the real motive 
> is not at all the wellbeing of anybody on the receiving end.  Many tactics go 
> into that: deception, bullying, impoverishment, and more overt things.
>
> We have a crisis of bad faith in many dimensions, certainly in this country 
> with which I am most familiar, but perhaps more widely.  There is no 
> statement that only means what it claims to be about.  Any statement, with a 
> dishonest motive, can be used for a purpose that isn’t what it claims to be 
> about.  That is on the sending end.  On the receiving end, when there is a 
> belief that all senders act in bad faith (whether or not that blame is 
> earned), the receiver can choose to reject any statement, no matter how good 
> its content is capable of being.  
>
> We are in a bad downward spiral in that exchange.  

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Jochen Fromm]

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, melting arctic ice is a fact, melting glaciers 
is a fact. In the arctic regions we can oberve the rising temperatures most 
clearly.
-J.

 Original message From: Marcus Daniels  
Date: 12/29/17  21:11  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity 
Coffee Group  Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change 


"My problem is that I fear that we have passed the point of no possible remedy. 
 There was a meme which was a graph of global mean temperature for the last 
several centuries.  There was a sharp transient to the
 high side in recent decades."



Hippopatumus in Cologne could be fun.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian




From: Friam  on behalf of Frank Wimberly 


Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:04:39 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change
 


My problem is that I fear that we have passed the point of no possible remedy.  
There was a meme which was a graph of global mean temperature for the last 
several centuries.  There was a sharp transient to the high side in recent 
decades.



Frank









Frank Wimberly

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2

Phone (505) 670-9918









On Dec 29, 2017 12:59 PM, "Marcus Daniels"  wrote:




And of course, the errors can be in either direction.  Large organizations tend 
to avoid controversy, not seek it out.
Other alternative views can be quite terrifying...





http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf



How about boulders like below being tossed around in storms near Miami, 
Shanghai, etc.






http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589497919268





From: Friam  on behalf of Marcus
 Daniels 

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:46:13 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change
 



"In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees centigrade 
per decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of 0.05 degrees centigrade 
for the previous 15 years."



The second plot gives an idea of how these estimates, based on observation, 
could go wrong.  However, the first plot in the first image shows a trend over 
a larger interval, which is consistent with matching the observational
 & simulation outputs for longer periods. 














From: Friam  on behalf of Pieter
 Steenekamp 

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:16:38 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change
 


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 ABM to get the emerging properties of the system as part of 
the deep learning exercise - a very exciting endeavor).



In my career, I have made many technical mistakes. I guess this is part of 
making predictions based on models. I do not have any climate modeling 
expertise, but I do measure their success in the accuracy of the model's 
predictions.



In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees centigrade per 
decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of 0.05 degrees centigrade for 
the previous 15 years. 



Maybe they are right in their new disaster predictions? IMO it would give them 
some credibility if they admit the uncertainties.



On 29 December 2017 at 20:44, uǝlƃ ☣
 wrote:


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, perhaps even stupid, opinions and 
have been treated with respect.





On 12/29/2017 10:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:

> 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?







--

☣ 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 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

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:
> 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?

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

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 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 controversial to scientists,
> but opaque to the laity: the big bang and inflation.  I think it's pretty
> clear there was no big bang, at least not as naively conceived.  When one
> cosmologist talks to another, they probably freely admit that.  But when a
> cosmologist talks to a regular person, of course there was a big bang.
>
> So, it's easy to see why the IPCC would hesitate to proclaim their
> uncertainty very loudly.  Their conclusions could easily be lost.
>
> But more to your point, yes, their predictions from 1990 were bound to be
> wrong to some extent (as are all predictions).  Their new predictions will
> be wrong, too.  And it's good for everyone to know the full dimension of
> the predictions.  However, what you didn't mention was the extent to which
> the models have *evolved* from 1990 to 2014 (and 2014 to today).  What we
> need is a fuller understanding of the modeling workflow.  All models are
> iteratively constructed.  Do you know how the models have evolved from 1990
> to today?
>
>
> On 12/29/2017 11:16 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> > In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3
> degrees centigrade per decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of
> 0.05 degrees centigrade for the previous 15 years.
> >
> > Maybe they are right in their new disaster predictions? IMO it would
> give them some credibility if they admit the uncertainties.
>
>
> --
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

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 controversial to scientists, but 
opaque to the laity: the big bang and inflation.  I think it's pretty clear 
there was no big bang, at least not as naively conceived.  When one cosmologist 
talks to another, they probably freely admit that.  But when a cosmologist 
talks to a regular person, of course there was a big bang.

So, it's easy to see why the IPCC would hesitate to proclaim their uncertainty 
very loudly.  Their conclusions could easily be lost.

But more to your point, yes, their predictions from 1990 were bound to be wrong 
to some extent (as are all predictions).  Their new predictions will be wrong, 
too.  And it's good for everyone to know the full dimension of the predictions. 
 However, what you didn't mention was the extent to which the models have 
*evolved* from 1990 to 2014 (and 2014 to today).  What we need is a fuller 
understanding of the modeling workflow.  All models are iteratively 
constructed.  Do you know how the models have evolved from 1990 to today?


On 12/29/2017 11:16 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees centigrade 
> per decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of 0.05 degrees 
> centigrade for the previous 15 years. 
> 
> Maybe they are right in their new disaster predictions? IMO it would give 
> them some credibility if they admit the uncertainties.


-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Eric Smith]

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 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 in bad 
> faith.  By that I mean a sort of dishonesty of motive, where the real motive 
> is not at all the wellbeing of anybody on the receiving end.  Many tactics go 
> into that: deception, bullying, impoverishment, and more overt things.
> 
> We have a crisis of bad faith in many dimensions, certainly in this country 
> with which I am most familiar, but perhaps more widely.  There is no 
> statement that only means what it claims to be about.  Any statement, with a 
> dishonest motive, can be used for a purpose that isn’t what it claims to be 
> about.  That is on the sending end.  On the receiving end, when there is a 
> belief that all senders act in bad faith (whether or not that blame is 
> earned), the receiver can choose to reject any statement, no matter how good 
> its content is capable of being.  
> 
> We are in a bad downward spiral in that exchange.  There is enough usage in 
> bad faith that in some cases it justifies the cynicism of listeners, and in 
> many more cases, it gives their cynicism a convenient rationalization.  On 
> the other side, when people give up thinking they have agency, but remain 
> alive, cynicism and rejection and a general destructiveness can be a recourse 
> to sinking just into frustration.  I think those choices are mistakes, but I 
> don’t think they necessarily deserve blame, and they certainly warrant an 
> attitude of helpfulness and committed caring.
> 
> Anybody who picks up a tool with the intention of genuinely helping others, 
> and having the humility to understand that it is hard to know how to do that, 
> but necessary to keep trying, is eligible to be a comrade of mine.
> 
> All best,
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.  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), 
>> which is that this is about thugs.  That goes beyond the executive to an 
>> increasingly purified right wing since Gingrich’s tactics in (the 80s?).  It 
>> is not that they don’t know “the truth” of a matter; it is an active war on 
>> the existence of truth as a public good, or of anything else that impedes 
>> the exercise of thug power.  Nick has articulated this cleanly in several 
>> emails, over the past months.
>> 
>> But again, anger and outrage are for people.  Or for something close enough 
>> to people that there is anything redeemable about it.  Disinfectants and 
>> vaccines are for public health problems.  No less commitment, but a 
>> different kind, and hopefully a more focused mind.
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 10:49 AM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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, Frank, and 
>>> Pamela.  He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He 
>>> simply knows how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned 
>>> people who care about beliefs and knowledge.
>>> 
>>> On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
 He is one of these:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ☣ 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
>> 
>> 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Eric Smith]

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 in bad faith.  
By that I mean a sort of dishonesty of motive, where the real motive is not at 
all the wellbeing of anybody on the receiving end.  Many tactics go into that: 
deception, bullying, impoverishment, and more overt things.

We have a crisis of bad faith in many dimensions, certainly in this country 
with which I am most familiar, but perhaps more widely.  There is no statement 
that only means what it claims to be about.  Any statement, with a dishonest 
motive, can be used for a purpose that isn’t what it claims to be about.  That 
is on the sending end.  On the receiving end, when there is a belief that all 
senders act in bad faith (whether or not that blame is earned), the receiver 
can choose to reject any statement, no matter how good its content is capable 
of being.  

We are in a bad downward spiral in that exchange.  There is enough usage in bad 
faith that in some cases it justifies the cynicism of listeners, and in many 
more cases, it gives their cynicism a convenient rationalization.  On the other 
side, when people give up thinking they have agency, but remain alive, cynicism 
and rejection and a general destructiveness can be a recourse to sinking just 
into frustration.  I think those choices are mistakes, but I don’t think they 
necessarily deserve blame, and they certainly warrant an attitude of 
helpfulness and committed caring.

Anybody who picks up a tool with the intention of genuinely helping others, and 
having the humility to understand that it is hard to know how to do that, but 
necessary to keep trying, is eligible to be a comrade of mine.

All best,

Eric


> On Dec 29, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp  
> wrote:
> 
> 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.  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), 
> which is that this is about thugs.  That goes beyond the executive to an 
> increasingly purified right wing since Gingrich’s tactics in (the 80s?).  It 
> is not that they don’t know “the truth” of a matter; it is an active war on 
> the existence of truth as a public good, or of anything else that impedes the 
> exercise of thug power.  Nick has articulated this cleanly in several emails, 
> over the past months.
> 
> But again, anger and outrage are for people.  Or for something close enough 
> to people that there is anything redeemable about it.  Disinfectants and 
> vaccines are for public health problems.  No less commitment, but a different 
> kind, and hopefully a more focused mind.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> > On Dec 29, 2017, at 10:49 AM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
> >
> > 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, Frank, and 
> > Pamela.  He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He 
> > simply knows how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned 
> > people who care about beliefs and knowledge.
> >
> > On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> >> He is one of these:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> >
> > --
> > ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

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 ABM to get the
emerging properties of the system as part of the deep learning exercise - a
very exciting endeavor).

In my career, I have made many technical mistakes. I guess this is part of
making predictions based on models. I do not have any climate modeling
expertise, but I do measure their success in the accuracy of the model's
predictions.

In 1990 the IPCC predicted a temperature increase of 0.3 degrees centigrade
per decade. In 2014 they reported an actual increase of 0.05 degrees
centigrade for the previous 15 years.

Maybe they are right in their new disaster predictions? IMO it would give
them some credibility if they admit the uncertainties.

On 29 December 2017 at 20:44, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:

> 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, perhaps even stupid, opinions
> and have been treated with respect.
>
>
> On 12/29/2017 10:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> > 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?
>
>
> --
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

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, perhaps even stupid, opinions and 
have been treated with respect.


On 12/29/2017 10:34 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> 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?


-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pieter Steenekamp]

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.  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),
> which is that this is about thugs.  That goes beyond the executive to an
> increasingly purified right wing since Gingrich’s tactics in (the 80s?).
> It is not that they don’t know “the truth” of a matter; it is an active war
> on the existence of truth as a public good, or of anything else that
> impedes the exercise of thug power.  Nick has articulated this cleanly in
> several emails, over the past months.
>
> But again, anger and outrage are for people.  Or for something close
> enough to people that there is anything redeemable about it.  Disinfectants
> and vaccines are for public health problems.  No less commitment, but a
> different kind, and hopefully a more focused mind.
>
> Eric
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 2017, at 10:49 AM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
> >
> > 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, Frank, and
> Pamela.  He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He
> simply knows how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned
> people who care about beliefs and knowledge.
> >
> > On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> >> He is one of these:
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> >
> > --
> > ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Eric Smith]

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), which 
is that this is about thugs.  That goes beyond the executive to an increasingly 
purified right wing since Gingrich’s tactics in (the 80s?).  It is not that 
they don’t know “the truth” of a matter; it is an active war on the existence 
of truth as a public good, or of anything else that impedes the exercise of 
thug power.  Nick has articulated this cleanly in several emails, over the past 
months.

But again, anger and outrage are for people.  Or for something close enough to 
people that there is anything redeemable about it.  Disinfectants and vaccines 
are for public health problems.  No less commitment, but a different kind, and 
hopefully a more focused mind.

Eric


> On Dec 29, 2017, at 10:49 AM, uǝlƃ ☣  wrote:
> 
> 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, Frank, and Pamela. 
>  He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He simply 
> knows how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned people who 
> care about beliefs and knowledge.
> 
> On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
>> He is one of these: 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> 
> -- 
> ☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Alfredo Covaleda Vélez]

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 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
god..
>> -J.

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] Climate Change

[Alfredo Covaleda Vélez]

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 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
god..
> -J.

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] Climate Change

[Alfredo Covaleda Vélez]

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:
> 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
god..
> -J.

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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[uǝlƃ ☣]

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, Frank, and Pamela.  
He's not "that stupid".  In fact, that question is irrelevant.  He simply knows 
how to push the buttons, especially of the well-intentioned people who care 
about beliefs and knowledge.

On 12/29/2017 09:40 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> He is one of these: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

-- 
☣ 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Marcus Daniels]

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.  An argument with him, observed 
with another party this time, goes about how it would have when he was 15.  (It 
is not an argument.)  He did not go to college, but it would have been wasted 
on him anyway.  Remarkably, his son has figured out how to get accepted at a 
university and how to pay for it all while the father has pooh-poohed the whole 
thing.   I knew a lot of people like the father growing up.   It is not just 
that they are uneducated, it is that they are incurious, kind of mean, and 
stupid.  Get a group of them together and they reinforce each other.   But I 
also know individuals who have had modest means their entire life and are not 
this way at all.   The best thing to do IMO is to put the incurious ones on an 
exhausting physical job like coal mining or construction so they can't cause 
trouble, then augmented by easy access to their worst vice at the end of the 
day.   I think what we have here is a personality disorder shared by some 
especially dull individuals.   It must be a universal problem, but perhaps the 
relative wealth of the U.S. midwest vs. its population density has enabled it 
to proliferate more than in other countries.

Marcus


From: Friam  on behalf of Tom Johnson 

Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 9:50:30 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

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 
weatherman says the low tonight will be 46 degrees and it goes up 1.8 degrees 
and is close to 48, that's no big deal.  I can just wear the same sweater or 
jacket. So what's the problem?"

We need to communicate the holistic understanding of the planet and ecosystem.  
Pictures from space are not, in themselves, sufficient.

TJ



Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists
Check out It's The People's 
Data
http://www.jtjohnson.com   
t...@jtjohnson.com


On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Merle Lefkoff 
> wrote:
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 science will get 
them there.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Nick Thompson 
> wrote:

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, this is “our” 
fault.



Nick



Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/



From: Friam 
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf 
Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>
Subject: [FRIAM] Climate Change



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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120



Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god..



-J.


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



--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent 

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Jochen Fromm]

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
-J.


 Original message From: Nick Thompson 
 Date: 12/29/17  16:13  (GMT+01:00) To: 'The Friday 
Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'  Subject: Re: 
[FRIAM] Climate Change 
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, this is “our” 
fault.   Nick  Nicholas S. ThompsonEmeritus Professor of Psychology and 
BiologyClark Universityhttp://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ 
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Climate Change 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120 Only 
an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god.. -J.
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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Gillian Densmore]

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
problem...etc.
So yes. Drumpf is just that slow and a Troll.  Stop giving that dude
attention! The faster he goes without it, the faster the problems he has
caused might be fixed. Trolls feed on attention they get a buzz from it.
And that he keeps getting it because people still act surpirsed at the crap
that person says or does is a problem. It doesn't matter if it's good or
bad. He's a pouty jack ass, troll plain and simple.
The sooner he goes as gamers say on perma ignore server wide. Or in this
case people on this list, the news etc stop covering  every brain fart that
does. The faster things might get fixed.

That and yes many people deny climate change is a thing.  I siimply don't
know why.
LOL like i've said to many times: I dont like having a gas powered car. I
(think) i'd like one that's a mix of solar+electric (for example) as those
rock!. I suspect for the most part the Das Uuber Geeken und Der Wendtag
Mailen  list "get it" lol infact I have seen long wonderfully enthusiastic
debates about climate issues, not only did we have some kick ass debates
but many of them brought up some bad ass theories! I thought at the time:
that is tooo coool!
That's because we are geeks, and love to learn all the cool shit this
wondefully awesome world has to offer.

That Alien robot speeks their language wich is: Geeks bad. Guts are gud,
/ignore GeeKDude/Woman  meen while the average folk the rest of us Das Uber
Geek think: (; ..-_-  sudo --reboot /user/brain
--now [kernel thread panic conditions encountered!]  /usr/brain brain
rebooting initiating int/sed /user/brain kill thread process id0... a
process that takes surpirisingly little time for something with such
advaced firmware and frequent updates.I am astounded it doesn't crash more
or take longer to defrag than 10-12hours. Alas it's harddrive has frequent
errors and, the user is a oft a smart ass.) and wonder if we heard right or
read right and  in my case sometime after the verbal commands bypass the
mouth+brain firewall I think from a bad ipf  configuration. And sometime
something like : What the ? comes out of the audiodevice well within
microphone range of other users.


I don't know whhy  Drumpf+ the 10-15% that follow Drumpf  ignore everything
including looking outside their fucking door and saying
that's...not...normal to have 55-60F/ rughly 16C  heat at 1030A in the
morning of a certain Dismber then  look down and note how stupdenously
pretty the sky is breath in... I can only conclude because that turdflower
is simply a troll. Then move on and ignore. That or just a bot.

They are welcome to ignore the facts such as they are. The rest of us will
move on. IBesides do you reely want to work yourself up over this stuff?




On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Jochen Fromm  wrote:

> 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
> god..
>
> -J.
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Tom Johnson]

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 weatherman says the low tonight will be 46 degrees and it goes
up 1.8 degrees and is close to 48, that's no big deal.  I can just wear the
same sweater or jacket. So what's the problem?"

We need to communicate the holistic understanding of the planet and
ecosystem.  Pictures from space are not, in themselves, sufficient.

TJ



Tom Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism   -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h)
Society of Professional Journalists 
*Check out It's The People's Data
*
http://www.jtjohnson.com   t...@jtjohnson.com


On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Merle Lefkoff 
wrote:

> 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 science will get them there.
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Nick Thompson  > wrote:
>
>> 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, this is “our” fault.
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas S. Thompson
>>
>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>>
>> Clark University
>>
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jochen
>> Fromm
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam@redfish.com>
>> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Climate Change
>>
>>
>>
>> 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>>
>>
>>
>> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
>> god..
>>
>>
>>
>> -J.
>>
>> 
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
> President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
> emergentdiplomacy.org
> Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
> merlelefk...@gmail.com 
> mobile:  (303) 859-5609
> skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Merle Lefkoff]

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 science will get them there.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Nick Thompson 
wrote:

> 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, this is “our” fault.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
>
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
>
> Clark University
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Jochen
> Fromm
> *Sent:* Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Climate Change
>
>
>
> 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>
>
>
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
> god..
>
>
>
> -J.
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
merlelefk...@gmail.com 
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Nick Thompson]

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, this is “our” 
fault.  

 

Nick 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:23 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
Subject: [FRIAM] Climate Change

 

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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120

 

Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god..

 

-J.


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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Pamela McCorduck]

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 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
> 
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god..
> 
> -J.
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

[Frank Wimberly]

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"  wrote:

> 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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
>
> Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My
> god..
>
> -J.
>
> 
> 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] Climate Change

[Jochen Fromm]

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://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/946531657229701120
Only an idiot would ignore climate change. Is he really this stupid? My god..
-J.
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