[FRIAM] Climate Change

Fri Dec 29 17:12:26 EST 2017

"Independent of Trump I'm still asking "Show me the climate models that are consistent with the roman warm period, the medieval warm period, the mini ice age and the modern warm period, then we talk again."  The IPCC models do not comply; they use the time period where a warming would probably have happened in any case."

The USA's stockpile stewardship systems (weapons) are about three times bigger than NOAA's fastest supercomputer Luna.  Even short term weather prediction can miss the mark, and with longer timescales and more approximations climate prediction will be even sketchier.  And either will only be as good as the data you put into them.

Apparently $25 million for Luna came from the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy.   Wouldn't it be better to get out in front of possible disasters rather than a bunch of panic buying after they occur?  That is, invest in the whole set of things that experts believe is needed to make good predictions?  The administrations instincts, of course, are the slash funding not to bolster it.

https://www.aip.org/fyi/2017/trump-budget-cuts-noaa-16-slashes-research-funding-even-deeper

So, no, I'm not going to show you climate models that predict everything indefinitely back in time.  For one thing, I'm not a climate expert.  The many people that contribute work to IPCC are climate experts.   Unless there is evidence of widespread manipulation of evidence by them or the scientists that synthesize their research, that there exists predictions that turn out to be wrong is not of great concern to me.  That's how science goes.  Make a better model and try again, and try to be as clear as possible on known unknowns so that policymakers can make decisions based on the best available evidence.   For our leaders to refuse to consider information because it is incomplete or imperfect or inconvenient is not acceptable.  Of course Trump does that too w.r.t. to consensus recommendations from the intelligence community too  (Hmm, seems to be a pattern.)

Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 2:24:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

Marcus,

I totally agree with you. I don't put any value on what Donald Trump has to say about climate change either.

Independent of Trump I'm still asking "Show me the climate models that are consistent with the roman warm period, the medieval warm period, the mini ice age and the modern warm period, then we talk again."  The IPCC models do not comply; they use the time period where a warming would probably have happened in any case.

I'm in Johannesburg, South Africa. It's 11pm Friday here and tomorrow morning 8am I participate in 5km walk/run event, so I'm off to bed now. I'll check in tomorrow again.

In the meantime, thanks for the very civil exchange of opinions.

On 29 December 2017 at 22:55, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

"Show me the climate models that are consistent with the roman warm period, the medieval warm period, the mini ice age and the modern warm period, then we talk again."

I guess we can count on Trump's administration to fund these very advanced multi-scale, multi-epoch models and the planet-sized supercomputers that will be needed to run them.  Or maybe we should just rely on his common sense and his buddies in industry to tell us what to do.

Marcus

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za<mailto:pieters at randcontrols.co.za>>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 1:37:32 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Change

Climate change is very interesting. There is evidence (as per the graphs in the 1990 IPCC report) that the climate has changed significantly in the past. We had a mini ice age that ended about 1850 and since then we had the industrial revolution with the accomponing rise in CO2.

Show me the climate models that are consistent with the roman warm period, the medieval warm period, the mini ice age and the modern warm period, then we talk again.

The IPCC model takes the temperatures since the end of the mini ice age (1850) till now where the natural climate change would probably have resulted in an increase in temperatures in any case? (Maybe not, but it's definitely not inconsistent with previous temperatures).

Now they develop models to prove that the increase in temperatures since  1850 was caused by an increase in CO2 levels? And they admit that the increase the 15 years prior to the latest report has flattened out significantly.

I don't disagree with the basic science that CO2 equilibrium climate sensitivity is about 1 degree centigrade per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. But that is probably insignificant compared to natural climate variability? I don't know? (But neither has the IPCC convinced me that they have a clue)

On 29 December 2017 at 22:11, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com>> wrote:

"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<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Frank Wimberly <wimberly3 at gmail.com<mailto: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<tel:(505)%20670-9918>

On Dec 29, 2017 12:59 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto: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

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

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com<mailto: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.

[cid:4e595913-79f9-4450-9e19-09a463721070]

[cid:036a7e54-ac19-42e1-bace-9ee6458e9927]

________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com<mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com>> on behalf of Pieter Steenekamp <pieters at randcontrols.co.za<mailto: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<mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171229/6a3621f6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedImage.png
Type: image/png
Size: 128204 bytes
Desc: pastedImage.png
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171229/6a3621f6/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pastedImage.png
Type: image/png
Size: 136586 bytes
Desc: pastedImage.png
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171229/6a3621f6/attachment-0003.png>