Re: Climate Change

Posted by Marcus G. Daniels on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Climate-Change-tp7590999p7591023.html

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 <[hidden email]> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]>
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 ☣ <[hidden email]> 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