Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 06:12am PT
|
Ok, lol, that statement is not all condescending backpedal. Some of it may involve condescension as you two appear to have some history on this thread, but it is not a backpedal. It is next to impossible to explain the problems with mathematical errors in an article if you have no real mathematical skills to base it off of. Heck, it's been nearly 20 years for me and I'm having a hard time with it. I used to be able to derive the electromagnetic wave equation derives from Maxwell's equations. Now I can't even remember Faraday-Lenz's Law and I actually worked with it a lot for a while. If you don't use it you will lose it and then you are just behind. You can get yourself into mathematical trouble real quick (as I am sure I do).
And Ed and Phule are right. Just because a system is non linear does not mean it is chaotic. If that "article" had been vetted properly, that statement never would have shown up. That is the whole point of scientific publishing, to have a vetting processes, to make sure the authors are following the scientific "rules" so to speak. People with unpopular views still get published this way, although it can be tougher due to human behavior (i.e. politics).
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 06:13am PT
|
"You're dumb!" is so much easier than making a valid argument.
No, I am not saying that. I am only saying that you don't seem to have any knowledge about mathematics. You could be very smart and still know nothing about mathematics.
Do you have any knowledge about mathematics? Do you know what a differential equation are? What a linear system are?
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 06:35am PT
|
Do you believe Earth's climate system is chaotic?
This may be an example of not understanding systems of mathematical equations at all. It also seems to be a great example of why I don't try to post on this thread more often. Edward T., it just seems like you are not even trying to understand what Phule is saying.
But to answer the question, as i understand it some of the equations in this system can be considered "chaotic", but not all.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 06:59am PT
|
Ok. I see where you are coming from The Chief. You just don't believe in the scientific process, especially if it leads to a statement you don't like. Probably because you just have no experience with it and it is foreign to you. Some people do turn it into a religion, but it is not mine. It's more like a puzzle or a game, where you need to follow certain rules. These rules are really not that constraining. And would you not say that 1+1=2? Or 2x4=8? These results spring from some of those rules you don't like or call religion. But I bet you use those rules, you Zealot you ;)
Have fun with this thread guys
And I've never said the sky is falling. lol.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 07:16am PT
|
There you go lumping me with everyone else again.
Oh yeah, your scientific process is far from perfect as many of your community claim it to be. Note my paragraph above on the CPC's modeling for this and last years Winter periods precip forecasts for the time periods I referred to. They never materialized. Nor did the extreme ENSO event the same agency published was going to materialize this Winter. Zilcho.
uh, duh. Scientific progress can be a very messy process. I can give you lot's of examples that don't even involve "climate change", or whatever people are calling it now. It has to be separated from politics. This particular problem is one of the worst for that. For me, it really is politic independent. But all you have is my word on that. How about you? Politic independent?
And dude, they can't even model weather very accurately, much less climate.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 07:46am PT
|
But of course he "don't give a shet either way"
Well over 6,000 posts to this thread, not counting his sock puppets. The man is obsessed.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 16, 2015 - 08:09am PT
|
You issue a challenge to someone who posted twice in the last six months. When he doesn't respond within a day, you claim he can't.
You're off the mark. I say he can't because what he posted is erroneous.
How about this--You, Eddie, cannot in your own words say why the graph that AndyMan posted is accurate. Please tell us how there has been no warning for the past 18 years and 1 month.
Try that one on for size.
Aah yes... K-man's tried and true "you're anti-science" ploy.
Not a ploy Eddie, just an observation. The OpEds on WUWT have a "denier" slant, and they get debunked on a continuous basis. That you endorse what is obviously a sham site says a lot about how you justify your AGW views.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 08:42am PT
|
Do you believe Earth's climate system is chaotic?
it shouldn't be characterized as "a belief," isn't that what you've been saying EdwardT? but on the science.
Recall that Lorenz was investigating the numerical solutions of a set of equations describing the global atmospheric circulation, a model, which was developed in the 50's and the 60's. His findings of that "system" (which the model was built to describe) were that they exhibited a sensitivity to the initial conditions, that is, when he rounded off the results of a simulation and used them to start another "run" the results of that run diverged from the continuation of the initial run.
In spite of the fact that Poincare had been looking at "nonlinear dynamics" motivated by his work in celestial mechanics (and generalized to a category of nonlinear dynamical systems we would identify as "chaotic" systems), Lorenz did not immediately know whether or not his system was "chaotic."
If you go to the all knowing Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
your eye might be drawn to the animation of the motion of the "double rod pendulum" which is there to make a point. Unfortunately it is an incomplete point... the pendulum is quite predictable if the starting amplitude of the pendulum is less than a particular value. That value depends on the parameters of the pendulum. It's motion under those conditions are quite predictable.
So there is more to a system's "chaotic behavior" than just the declaration that it is so...
You will find that there is no definition of "chaotic" system, though these attributes are provided as a start:
1) it must be sensitive to initial conditions;
2) it must be topologically mixing; and
3) it must have dense periodic orbits.
and so Lorenz's model of the atmosphere (such as it was 50 years ago) showed that it behaved as a chaotic system, and that model probably exhibited those properties.
You can follow the thread of the idea to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_Lorenz
which is not too controversial (perhaps it is interesting to note that Kenneth Trenberth was his PhD student).
The abstract from the paper
Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow
Finite systems of deterministic ordinary nonlinear differential equations may be designed to represent forced dissipative hydrodynamic flow. Solutions to these equations can be identified with trajectories in phase space. For those systems with bounded solutions, it is found that nonperiodic solutions are ordinarily unstable with respect to small modifications, so that slightly differing initial states can evolve into considerably different states. Systems with bounded solutions are shown to possess bounded numerical solutions.
A simple system representing cellular convection is solved numerically. All of the solutions are found to be unstable, and almost all of them are nonperiodic.
The feasibility of very-long-range weather prediction is examined in the light of these results.
the last paragraph of the paper:
There remains the very important question as to how long is "very-long-range." Our results do not give the answer for the atmosphere; conceivably it could be a few days, or a few centuries. In an idealized system, whether it be the simple convective model described here, or a complicated system designed to resemble the atmosphere as closely as possible, the answer may be obtained by comparing pairs of numerical solutions having nearly identical initial conditions. In the case of the real atmosphere, if all methods fail, we can wait for an analogue.
then follow the link to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_weather_prediction
and I think you find that the answer to that last paragraph is still a topic of research.
Is the behavior of the atmosphere describable as a chaotic system?
But please note, that climate models are not the same thing as "very-long-range weather predictions." The distinction is very important, and the implication of weather forecast limitations due to the possibility that the system is chaotic is not at all clear. In particular, the atmosphere may be chaotic, but the climate not. Or if they are both chaotic, the time scales over which the system trajectories depart in phase space may be very different, weather may be days, climate may be centuries.
To understand that you'd have to understand the mathematics of dynamical systems...
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 09:30am PT
|
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
Well over 6,000 posts to this thread, not counting his sock puppets. The man is obsessed.
Obsessed? You got me beat there sport... you have well over 7000 or more on this stupidass thread Chiloe.
How did you arrive at that number?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 09:43am PT
|
Incredible Wade. Where did you find the picture of the young Eddie?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 10:28am PT
|
I have tried to discuss with Kip Hansen. His only response so far were some condensing drivel where he implied that I didn't understand the subject but that I shouldn't feel bad about it.
We see it here all the time but I still find it strange when people that don't seem to have much real knowledge seems to believe that they know everything.
To me it seems like he has read some popular science books about chaos but that he might not even understand basic properties of dynamical systems and differential equations.
So I have now tried to discuss articles two times on WUWT and my thought about the site just became worse everytime. Many articles are just crap and the authors are not at all open to discussion and the possibility that they don't know everything.
Rick Sumner, why don't you write something and send it to WUWT? I would be very surprised if they didn't want to publish it and that a lot of people would think that it was a very good work?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 10:50am PT
|
Ray, why dont you write up an alarmist drivel peice highlighting new scenarios of doom and send it to WUWT. They would probably publish it for the ridulous entertainment value intrinsic to the your religion.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 10:56am PT
|
I just don't know as much as you, kip hansen or monkton. If I did I would of course do that.
It was just a friendly advice. Your posts should just fit perfectly on that site.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 11:15am PT
|
Wow, I just checked out Raymond's patient efforts to point out the actual meanings of chaos, linearity etc. on that WUWT "chaos" thread. Props to Raymond for trying, although as he said it was hopeless in that venue.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 11:44am PT
|
Have you learned men noticed that this winter was almost an identical repeat of 76/77. That year saw a ridiculouly warm and dry west coast (just like this winter, I was rockclimbing in comfortable conditions at 7000') and very cold and snowy east of the rockies? Just like this year there was a huge warm pool of west pacific water that migrated then parked itself off the alaska coast causing a persistent 6-7 degree f increase of AK land temps and consequent dip southward of the polar jet stream to the lower 48 mid to east continent. In the case of 76/77, that marked the flip of the PDO to positive and two and half decades of modest global warming you religionists ascribe wholly or overwhelmingly to the mythical molecule CO2. Any bets amongst the clergy that this year marks a similar transition ?
|
|
Hardly Visible
Social climber
Llatikcuf WA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 03:49pm PT
|
The chief,
Go to your profile, click on forum posts tab then narrow your search to climate change skeptics.
You =6139
Chiloe =1330
Pretty simple really
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 04:36pm PT
|
You've contributed more than 20% of the posts to the longest (surviving) thread on Supertopo. That's a whole lot of shouting.
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 04:44pm PT
|
What could be better than Chief and Rick going full throttle....
You can almost hear them banjos playing...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 16, 2015 - 06:03pm PT
|
the only thing echoing around on this thread is your loudness, The Chief, what have you posted that has any content recently?
Your criticism of the forecasts is rather feeble, first, you don't know what the probability of the NOAA predictions are... how much variability are quoted for those 60, 90 and 120 day forecasts?
And by the way, those aren't "climate" predictions.
Perhaps you could do something useful and track down the statements of precision and accuracy for those.
And as you know El Nino conditions can exist with no increased rainfall in California... but the temps are rather high, look at the lack of snow in the Sierra, and the accelerated spring behavior of the plant life.
My guess is that you could probably be more effective with fewer posts with more (or at least some) content.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!