[FRIAM] Climate Change

Fri Dec 29 22:57:52 EST 2017

Steve, I had hoped for awhile that climate change studies would yield the
possibility of a truly transdisciplinary breakthrough in complex systems
modeling, rather than the interdisciplinary effort you recall that provided
"useful checks and balances" on academic honestly.  I take it from the
thread that my hope has not yet been realized.  Big sigh.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
>

-- 
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
merlelefkoff at gmail.com <merlelefoff at gmail.com>
mobile:  (303) 859-5609
skype:  merle.lelfkoff2
twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20171229/a3cdfe43/attachment.html>