"Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 3 42

[jmw]

At 273 posts I guess the time has come to request the old thread archived and continue in a new thread and it is in this thread that I think the latest news has its proper place.

The world has never seen such freezing heat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Oh dear,
just what do you have to do to lose the last shreds of credibility?

Tell me honestly folks, how many engineers would still have a job with a track record like Hansen?
Actually, perhaps we'd better not answer that because I suspect the answer is that in any profession there are complete f***-ups who will never be brought to book simply because the credibility of the people who have believed them for so long is also at risk and once one goes then the domino effect comes into being.

I guess that it is only when NASA closes that we will see and end to the career of this fine purveyor of temperature data but we can be sure he will turn up in some other role on the IPCC or as an acolyte of Nobel Laureate, Al Gore.

Success, it seems, depends not on getting it right but on notoriety and why else would so many deadly politicians earn so much on the speaking circuit once they have finally left office and while their dark deeds are still fresh in everyone's mind?


You know I can't help wondering, if it weren't for those "Chads" I wonder what sort of a condition the world would be in now? And, if we are in dire financial straits now, what kind of position would we otherwise be in?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

Why is every thing in a fraction of a degree? What are the margens of error?
Seems to me that the the tempeture changes hourly by upto several degrees day and night. So how do you correlate a fraction of a degree from man made sources, and a fraction of a degree from nature made sources?

What is the margen of error?

 

[SnTMan]

Or, to put it another way, the signal-to-noise ratio?

Regards,

Mike

 

[LCruiser]

That's why I think most objective people consider satellites the only reliable source of data.

 

[spongebob007]

Some actual facts about mathematical modeling of nonlinear systems.

While I too question the validity of the computer models to predict climate change, some of the reasons that people give are downright laughable.

Do any of you know what the key feature of a chaotic system is? Give up? Sensitive dependence on initial conditions. In fact, in the book "Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos" by Steven Strogatz, the following definition is given:

Chaos is aperiodic long-term behavior in a deterministic system that exhibits sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

One key thing to understand from this definition is that the system is deterministic. There is no "noise" in the inputs as some here have put it.

Mathematical models of nonlinear systems will typically employ an iterative solution. This means that small errors can grow quickly, a feedback system if you will. In a real sense, this means that for a chaotic system long term prediction is nearly impossible. The term used for this phenomenon is time, or event horizon. So it does not matter how sophisticated your code, your computers, or your weather data gathering instruments are, there is a very real limit on how far out you can accurately predict the weather or climate change. The thing is, these differences in initial conditions can be imperceptible, yet lead to completely different results.

Here is a little non-linear game you can play. You can do it on your calculator or write a program if you like. When solving a model iteratively, the results of one iteration are fed back into the model as initial conditions for the next iteration. To prime our feedback iterator, pick a number, any number, and square it. Next take that result and square it and so on and so on. What happens? As engineers we all know that 0.999999999 and 1.0000000000000000001 are all equivalent to unity. Now take these three numbers and put them into your feedback iterator. You will quickly see that these three initial conditions lead to very different results.

 

[jmw]

Well now, here is some useful "scientific" logic:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...mate-change-irreversible-warn-scientists.html

Contrary to popular opinion, halting carbon emissions will not see temperatures reduce before the year 3000, according to the US-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory.

So how is this the case?
On the one hand we are asked to believe that anthropogenic emissions over the last 50-100 years have caused climate change and on the other that even if we reversed this situation it would not halt global warming any time soon... at least 1000years according to these people.

The curiosity is that Ms Solomon says:

"Climate change is slow, but it is unstoppable - all the more reason to act quickly, so the long-term situation does not get even worse."

Er, excuse me but if the damn thing is unstoppable, and if reducing CO2 does nothing , why do we still have to flog ourselves to death to try to do something we know to be futile?
Do they really understand what they are saying?
Unstoppable presumably means cannot be stopped. So the only reason to try and do something is if you can do something meaningful.
In other words, the old St Ignatius Loyola prayer:
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

So, if climate change (natural or anthropogenic) is unstoppable why do they want us to carry on with expensive schemes to cut CO2?.

Well, the essence of what is said is we should do these things to stop it getting worse.....
So how can something have a profound worsening effect if you don't stop doing something and no effect at all if you do stop doing something? I'm lost.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Unotec]

After 52 iterations and with 15 decimals (excxel can't take more): 0.10539922436471200000000000000000000000000 5910520808.50178000000000000000000000000000000000000


<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[SnTMan]

Well, I think its pretty evident that the climate is governed by NEGATIVE feedback rather than positive, or else it would have "run away" thousands or millions of years ago.

Regards,

Mike

 

[spongebob007]

After 20 iterations 1.001 gives:
1.4562198745419688285229741392991e+455

and 1.002 gives:
7.446845228718415350443743565781e+909

The x^2 feedback iterator is very simple, yet it illustrates some very interesting behavior of nonlinear systems. Not only is there a large sensitivity to initial conditions, there are different distinct behaviors that are a function of the initial conditons. For any number less than 1, the iterator will eventually converge to zero, for any number greater than one, the iterator will eventually blow up, and for 1, the answer is always 1. So depending on the intial conditions, the iterator can exhibit stable or unstable behavior. This is where chaos kicks in.

Look at how roundoff error leads to chaos: We would all agree that 1.002 is equivalent to 1.0015. Now consider that the initial priming value of our iterator is in all reality 1.0015. This value is some quantity of interest that is measured by some type of device with only three places, so naturally the measured value will be rounded up to 1.002 ( or maybe just truncated to 1.001). For 1.0015 after 20 iterations, the result is:
3.7527800070685574894315284829489e+682 (this is the "real" answer). At the top of the post the values for round off and truncation are given. Look at how different the results are simply based on how the initial data is processed. Why is this glossed over when computer models of global warming are discussed?

 

[spongebob007]

SnTMan,
The one bit of global warming propaganda that does hold some bit of mathematical basis is the idea of "tipping points" that Hansen is talking about. It is very possible that the climate could be exhibiting stable behavior (just like entering 1 into the x^2 iterator). However if there is a slight perturbation in the system, it could go very unstable very rapidly. Thermal runaway is a good example of this phenomenon. If you take an electric device that has an efficiency that decreases with increasing temperature, and say, run it at 20W with 100CFM, it will stabilize at a fixed temperature. If you slowly increase the power, but keep the airflow constant, at some point the device temperature will begin to rise. This will reduce the efficency of the device, which will in turn cause it to run even hotter. Eventually the temperature will run away. Depending on the system parameters (power load, air flow) the system can exhibit stable or unstable behavior.

 

[spongebob007]

For more on these concepts see:

http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~fischel/Lorenz97/wheel.html

This page gives a brief explanation of the chaotic water wheel developed by Willem Malkus at MIT. It is a physical representation of the Lorenz equations.

Or do a google search on:

Ed Lorenz
Van der Pol Oscillator
Limit Cycle
James Gleick

 

[Unotec]

Why are these factors 'glossed over'?

They have to be glossed over. Otherwise it would mean that the intended audience is educated to understand how a simple variation of initial conditions can significantly efefct the result. They would need to understand math. Which unfortunately very few do. (I do not include myself, even though I understand and work with a little more signs than + & -, math is a world on its own, specially in complex statistics).

In my opinion, the root of the problem is that it is far easier to believe and accept an impending doom blindly caused by something that is beyond my grasp of understanding and because 'scientists' say so than to actually use a little grey matter and common sense and THINK. Evaluate and learn a little math.

My opinion only

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[SnTMan]

spongebob007, I have a nodding familiarity with the concept, however I have to think the climate system is pretty much self-damping, based on past behavior.

Regards,

Mike

 

[jmw]

But not entirely so since we have had some extremes at very rare intervals, including an Iceball Earth (during which we are supposed to belief the atmosphere was actually quite warm due to CO2....).

On the whole, though, I would have to concur that the climate is pretty stable and largely self-correcting. What we see in terms of variation is like "control" hunting; i.e. in any system with variables no control system will give a precisely flat control of the regulated parameter and the more variables the more this is the case. Given the range of different factors that affect climate, the surprise to me is that the system is as stable as it is.

One does wonder if those earlier extremes will ever come back again in the normal course of things.
Has the maturation of the sun and the Earth meant that some of those conditions necessary to the "run-away" effects no longer can exist? Be nice to think so but how can we ever know?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SnTMan]

jmw, I didn't mean to imply stability within a "comfortable" range, just that the climate has never proceeded to an extreme, either hot of cold, and stayed there as with a classic positive feedback.

If the asteroid impact that is widely believed to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs did not provide a sufficient perturbation, what could? That was a perturbation of a scale mankind can only dream of

Regards,

Mike

 

[jmw]

Snowball Earth:

http://www.snowballearth.org/overview.html

http://www.snowballearth.org/what.html

On the other hand, some researchers believe they have disproved the snowball theory:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1857545.stm

But whichever you believe, there is this:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Prehistoric-Ice-Ages-Averted-by-Carbon-Dioxide-99025.shtml

Oops!
On the other hand, some scientists believe that CO2 caused an ice age:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...-have-caused-an-ice-age-claim-scientists.html

The scientists studied limestone rocks and found evidence that large amounts of greenhouse gas coincided with a prolonged period of freezing temperatures.

Such glaciation could happen again if global warming is not curbed, the university's school of geography, earth and environmental sciences warned.

(the "Baked Alaska Pudding" theory).

By the way, scientists now believe dinosaurs could survive the cold which means that the extinction theory about a nuclear winter finishing them off is under question following discoveries of dinosaur fossils in Siberia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4330218/Dinosaurs-could-survive-cold-conditions.html

So many theories storngly supported at one time or another and then falling away... all except AGW.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

For those of you who think I have been tough on Hansen, here is what his boss thought:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,”

Some good links.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

Yet many scientists have been dismissed for decenting points of view, or for the fact that they worked for energy companies.

This still looks like a false issue being cramed down our wallets.

The fact is that even with bad smog days people still want to travel to work by car by themselves. And mandating change will only make a large number of voters mad.

Your an engineer, find a more acceptable solution than higher taxes, smaller cars, and bikeing to work.

Most of us want a cleaner enviroment, but few of us want to be in the poor house because of it.

 

[LCruiser]

Here's a good link on climate models, and Realclimate to boot:

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/29/real-climate-suffers-from-foggy-perception-by-henk-tennekes/

 

[TGS4]

The questions that nobody seems to ask, and certainly nobody in the AGW camp wants to be addressed are the following:

If global temperatures were to increase, why is necessarily a bad thing? Why are the global temperatures that existed at the start of the 19th (or 20th) century deemed to be the baseline from which all deviation is marked as "bad".

Certainly there will be consequences, changes that need to be accommodated. However, aren't we (humans) the best when it comes to adapting? So, it's warmer - deal with it. So, the sea levels rise - deal with it. So, there's more (or less) rain in your corner of the globe - deal with it. If the local climate is not to your liking - move. that's what our ancestors did throughout history - they found a climate that suited them and stayed there (or moved with the familiar climate). And I don't like the answer of "millions of people in (insert poor country here) will die if this happens". When the choices are move or die, I bet that most people will choose the former rather than the latter.

We could argue until we're blue in the face about whether or not the global temperatures are increasing, or whether the cause (or effect) of that is CO2 concentrations, or whether humans are the cause of this, but my answer to most of it is - who cares? Climate changes - either adapt or die. Isn't that what evolution is all about?

<Gets off his soap box>

 

[LCruiser]

TGS4 -

Those are very good questions. First off, mankind has always thrived under warm conditions. When the globe cools is when we have starvation etc. If it were not for the Holocene we would still be living in caves or in Africa.

Secondly, the temperature record began at the coldest time of the last 8,000 years, so why is warming back up such a problem?

Then, climate is not the problem anyway. Overpopulation is. There is a high probability that the biggest problem in the foreseable future is near, and it is the destruction of arable land. We have x people to feed and y arable land to feed them. The critical ratio is x/y. If x goes up, Earth is not sustainable. However, if y goes down it's not sustainable either - and y is going down.

There are of course additional considerations, such as how robust crops are - and the higher the CO2 concentration, the more robust they are.

The acid test as far as I'm concerned is to look at how many people are on the 10% of land closest to the equator and compare it to how many people are on the 10% of land closest to the poles. It's evident that we can take warming much more easily than cooling...