[FRIAM] Climate Change

Fri Dec 29 15:41:24 EST 2017

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 <marcus at snoutfarm.com> Date: 12/29/17  21:11  (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com> 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 <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com>

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" <marcus at snoutfarm.com> 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 <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Marcus
 Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>

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 <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Pieter
 Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za>

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 ☣
<gepropella at gmail.com> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171229/ce5c3438/attachment.html>