[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.  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 <pieters at randcontrols.co.za> 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 <desmith at santafe.edu> 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 ☣ <gepropella at gmail.com> 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
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>