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 experiencea "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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 8:27:21 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate ChangeI 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 [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of u?l? ?
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 5:40 PM
To: FriAM <[hidden email]>
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
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |