4 ms·

> Insofar as the issue of his tone or arrogance is concerned, I don't get that. Is it possible that when we complain about an adversary or messenger with bad "t

> Insofar as the issue of his tone or arrogance is concerned, I don't get that. Is it possible that when we complain about an adversary or messenger with bad "tone" or "arrogance" that there is something in the message that we don't like? Certainly he is direct and blunt in his approach. Doesn't put me off. Wasn't a substantial part of Black Swan a story about a fake novelist writing a novel that people didn't like and wouldn't publish or something? It's been a while so I don't remember the details but it was pretty clearly Taleb coyly describing how he couldn't take editorial criticism. There was also a lot of shit talking about sycophants, and then talk about how Benoit Mandlebrot was so smart that he thought Von Neumann was not that bright, and Mandlebrot likes Taleb so therefore Taleb's work must be super important. I don't think any of that falls under the category of being direct and blunt in making an intellectual argument. It's just extraneous ego-driven bullshit. The climate stuff is unrelated but worth making a short note on. The physics of climate change (not called that because it's less politically controversial, but because it's an umbrella term that describes a host of related phenomena that aren't solely an increase in temperature) are obviously complicated but not completely chaotic. As a professional (caveat emptor!) geoscientist I would phrase it that the longer-term changes are more linear but the shorter-term changes are less so, described quite nicely by you: "'Chaos' theory that lends exceptional stability to many phenomenon.' That being said, there is certainly a fair amount of stochasticity in the system but cutting carbon emissions by half (back to 1977 levels) just is not going to result in ice bulldozing Omaha. Really. It wouldn't be adding a new attractor, but it might be bringing one on a little more slowly. But then again I'm just Ozark trailer trash...

wglb 10y ago
I don't think any of that falls under the category of being direct and blunt in making an intellectual argument. It's just extraneous ego-driven bullshit I probably can't strongly disagree with that. And you are probably right about the fake novelist--it has been some time. Certainly Mandelbrot was one who got seriously delayed recognition for his contributions. As did Lorenz for his remarkable discovery that he couldn't get anyone to pay attention to. I don't disagree that both Mandelbrot and Taleb are/were arrogant. I would rather pay attention to someone who is arrogant and smart rather than arrogant and stupid. Your statement obviously complicated but not completely chaotic intrigues me. The reading I have done on the topic suggests that weather systems are to their core chaotic. I wonder if there is additional reading you can point to that suddenly cutting carbon emissions by half won't result in Omaha getting hammered. This conclusion does in fact seem to be the one that anti-climate-change-deniers have reached. The massive increase in carbon dioxide into the system is an impulse that seems to have moved the attractor in a scary direction. Why wouldn't a massive impulse in the opposite direction do the same? An engineer, not a climate scientist.
- cossatot 10y ago
  I think the most important thing is to not conflate weather and climate. Weather is a local, relatively instantaneous, open system whereas climate is global, long-term and less open. Weather is chaotic in part because energy can be rapidly brought into or removed from a weather system like a storm (a storm can go from over ocean to over land, or encounter hot and wet or cold and dry air, or the incoming solar radiation can change because of sunrise/sunsets), because internal circulation and lateral boundary conditions are really important (Navier-Stokes) and because water phase transitions (freezing/melting, evaporation/precip/sublimation) are all rapid and can account for a big chunk of the available energy. The earth's climate is a bit different. Incoming energy from the sun doesn't change that rapidly--the sun has some 'weather' patterns and then there are earth's own orbital patterns that very regularly over periods from 23,000 to 100,000 years (Milankovitch cycles). But these are changes of a few % over long term. Very different than a hurricane hitting land or afternoon sun causing microscale convective systems to intiate. Greenhouse gases can change the amount of energy lost to either direct reflection of incoming short-wavelength solar radiation or later, long-wavelength radiation (i.e. radiation of energy that was initially absorbed rather than straight reflected), and again these changes are a few % net. Additionally, the earth's climate can't interact with any other climates, unlike weather systems. There are some other things to keep in mind particularly about ice ages, ice sheets and changing greenhouse gas emissions. First, the timescales are important. Unlike some chaotic math functions, the changes to the global ice balance is mediated by the processes involved. Melting of ice sheets can happen as quickly as the ice can absorb heat--this is relatively fast. However, continental ice sheets don't grow by freezing of liquid water (we're talking Antarctica/Greenland/ the Laurentide ice sheet that covered northern North America, not the Arctic seasonal sea ice which is minuscule in comparison and can't cover land). Continental ice sheets grow by slow accumulation of snow. So this takes a lot of time relative to melting (tens of thousands of years). >The massive increase in carbon dioxide into the system is an impulse that seems to have moved the attractor in a scary direction. Why wouldn't a massive impulse in the opposite direction do the same? Because we're still moving in the same direction by reducing emissions, just less rapidly. We'd be changing the sign of the second derivative, not the first, much less the root function (CO2 through time). A good way to think about it is a big pot of water over a heat source. The climate is the broad distribution of heat in the system, the major convection cells, etc. The weather is the eddies and other turbulence. What we're doing by modifying greenhouse gases is changing how much the lid on top of the pot is covering the pot. Slowing emissions is more or less just covering the pot more slowly. Now, there are feedbacks in the climate system (more clouds mean more reflection of solar radiation, etc.) but in general we're still adding insulation to the system which is really unlikely to cause major, long-term cooling. What worries me is direct, large-scale climate engineering: doing things to block incident solar radiation, etc. rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions (this also won't help ocean acidification and other major ecological issues). I think the possibility of unforeseen consequences is much, much higher than going back to emissions levels that have been observed recently. Like Ol' Dirty Bastard said, "let's take it back to seventy-nine".
aws_ls 10y ago
>> GP: But then I am just a simple country boy. Then you end with. > But then again I'm just Ozark trailer trash... Both of you folks make a lot of solid points and then end with such humility. Don't know what to make of it, is that sort of a deliberate Anti-Taleb (i.e. contrarian) style? :-) ... In any case its very refreshing. Please carry on.

wglb 10y ago

I don't think any of that falls under the category of being direct and blunt in making an intellectual argument. It's just extraneous ego-driven bullshit I probably can't strongly disagree with that. And you are probably right about the fake novelist--it has been some time. Certainly Mandelbrot was one who got seriously delayed recognition for his contributions. As did Lorenz for his remarkable discovery that he couldn't get anyone to pay attention to. I don't disagree that both Mandelbrot and Taleb are/were arrogant. I would rather pay attention to someone who is arrogant and smart rather than arrogant and stupid. Your statement obviously complicated but not completely chaotic intrigues me. The reading I have done on the topic suggests that weather systems are to their core chaotic. I wonder if there is additional reading you can point to that suddenly cutting carbon emissions by half won't result in Omaha getting hammered. This conclusion does in fact seem to be the one that anti-climate-change-deniers have reached. The massive increase in carbon dioxide into the system is an impulse that seems to have moved the attractor in a scary direction. Why wouldn't a massive impulse in the opposite direction do the same? An engineer, not a climate scientist.

cossatot 10y ago
I think the most important thing is to not conflate weather and climate. Weather is a local, relatively instantaneous, open system whereas climate is global, long-term and less open. Weather is chaotic in part because energy can be rapidly brought into or removed from a weather system like a storm (a storm can go from over ocean to over land, or encounter hot and wet or cold and dry air, or the incoming solar radiation can change because of sunrise/sunsets), because internal circulation and lateral boundary conditions are really important (Navier-Stokes) and because water phase transitions (freezing/melting, evaporation/precip/sublimation) are all rapid and can account for a big chunk of the available energy. The earth's climate is a bit different. Incoming energy from the sun doesn't change that rapidly--the sun has some 'weather' patterns and then there are earth's own orbital patterns that very regularly over periods from 23,000 to 100,000 years (Milankovitch cycles). But these are changes of a few % over long term. Very different than a hurricane hitting land or afternoon sun causing microscale convective systems to intiate. Greenhouse gases can change the amount of energy lost to either direct reflection of incoming short-wavelength solar radiation or later, long-wavelength radiation (i.e. radiation of energy that was initially absorbed rather than straight reflected), and again these changes are a few % net. Additionally, the earth's climate can't interact with any other climates, unlike weather systems. There are some other things to keep in mind particularly about ice ages, ice sheets and changing greenhouse gas emissions. First, the timescales are important. Unlike some chaotic math functions, the changes to the global ice balance is mediated by the processes involved. Melting of ice sheets can happen as quickly as the ice can absorb heat--this is relatively fast. However, continental ice sheets don't grow by freezing of liquid water (we're talking Antarctica/Greenland/ the Laurentide ice sheet that covered northern North America, not the Arctic seasonal sea ice which is minuscule in comparison and can't cover land). Continental ice sheets grow by slow accumulation of snow. So this takes a lot of time relative to melting (tens of thousands of years). >The massive increase in carbon dioxide into the system is an impulse that seems to have moved the attractor in a scary direction. Why wouldn't a massive impulse in the opposite direction do the same? Because we're still moving in the same direction by reducing emissions, just less rapidly. We'd be changing the sign of the second derivative, not the first, much less the root function (CO2 through time). A good way to think about it is a big pot of water over a heat source. The climate is the broad distribution of heat in the system, the major convection cells, etc. The weather is the eddies and other turbulence. What we're doing by modifying greenhouse gases is changing how much the lid on top of the pot is covering the pot. Slowing emissions is more or less just covering the pot more slowly. Now, there are feedbacks in the climate system (more clouds mean more reflection of solar radiation, etc.) but in general we're still adding insulation to the system which is really unlikely to cause major, long-term cooling. What worries me is direct, large-scale climate engineering: doing things to block incident solar radiation, etc. rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions (this also won't help ocean acidification and other major ecological issues). I think the possibility of unforeseen consequences is much, much higher than going back to emissions levels that have been observed recently. Like Ol' Dirty Bastard said, "let's take it back to seventy-nine".

aws_ls 10y ago

>> GP: But then I am just a simple country boy. Then you end with. > But then again I'm just Ozark trailer trash... Both of you folks make a lot of solid points and then end with such humility. Don't know what to make of it, is that sort of a deliberate Anti-Taleb (i.e. contrarian) style? :-) ... In any case its very refreshing. Please carry on.