Don't get me wrong - I love Newton. How about a 1st order differential equation of global energy storage:
d(GES)/dt = Ein/s - Eout/s Average energy in and energy out (at TOA) over a period is equal to the rate of change of global energy storage - which is mostly in the oceans. In CERES (Clouds and Earths Radiant Energy System) the planet has warmed over the past decade for instance - Ein exceeeds Eout and the rate of change in global energy storage is positive. Mostly, however, in the short wave and because of changes in cloud cover. As the current mega La Nina persists - cloud cover will increase and the planet (oceans and atmosphere) cool a little. This is my original quote in arguing for carbon neutrality by 2050 - something that goes well beyond Green Party policy in Australia. and something that is emphatically not going to happen through cap and trade. 'Just before opening the champagne bottles, think about the idea that humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere. If it is impossible to disentangle human impacts from natural variation – it is impossible to be definitive about climate risk. But it cuts both ways. If we can’t define the risk we cannot eliminate it either. If there is a 1 in 100, 1000 or even 1,000,000 chance - as shown in the chaotic behaviour of paleoclimates - of dire consequences to the planetary life support system we must make the decision to change the behaviour and eliminate the risk.' It seems to me that the rational decision is easy to make. Create the market for low carbon technologies and business will respond creatively. I think that government investment in not even neccessary - just the right social and cultural understanding sine qua non. The difficulty is in using irrational predictions of the certainty of dire outcomes for political engineering by social bloody democrats. The problem with Hansen and the IPCC is that if they are wrong over the next couple of decades - as I believe they most certainly are and as suggested by peer reviewed literaure - everyone is going to end up a sceptic and the impetus for decarbonisation is lost for at least a generation. I am arguing, perhaps forlornly, for action despite the confluence of ideologically inspired and millenialist thinking. If there is immense uncertainty - why not admit to it and not take the risk of being shown to be hopelessly wrong, muddleheaded, misguided and a social democrat. Or is that a tuatology? I don't think you are understanding chaos as one of three great ideas, along with relativity and quantum mechanics, in 20th Century physics. Small initial changes propagating nonlinearly through a complex and dynamic system and causing the system to jump between radicaly different states. Science can give us a correlation between UV and cloud for instance - but the system involves changes in the temperature of stratospheric ozone and consequential changes in sea surface pressure at the poles in particular. The system involves planetary spin, surface and deep ocean currents, wind and cloud feedbacks, wave propagation and refraction and reflection. Climate is theorectically determinant but practically incaluable. Global warming is certainly wrong - the more correct paradigm must be abrupt, and perhaps dangerous, climate change. On Sep 19, 3:29 pm, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Have you read James Hansen's book, "Storms of My Grandchildren"? If > he is even half right, then humanity may not survive much longer on > Earth, but will die out along with most of the rest of the planet. > Your use of chaos theory sounds like a great excuse to ignore Hansen's > warning, but what if he is right? Do you think it's really a good > idea to take that risk, especially since you are claiming that > humanity doesn't know enough to make a solid prediction of future > climate? Continuing with Business As Usual is a choice and there is a > risk that is associated with that choice. Your comment about "Hubris > is the assumption of truth" applies to the choice of BAU as well as > the choice to do those things which minimize CO2 emissions. Either > choice has consequences and without some effort to understand the > totality of the problem, it's impossible to make a rational decision. > Your knowledge and that of the policy makers may be limited, but the > scientists who study climate change are making their best efforts to > understand the situation. As you note, they may not have certainty, > but they have enough knowledge to set bounds on the range of likely > effects, since we know something about historical and paleo climate, > and that's what should be considered, now some hand waving claim that > everything is chaotic. Newtonian physics still works rather well in > many situations, in fact we used that level of physics to launch > satellites when I was working in the field... > > E. S. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > On Sep 18, 8:00 pm, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not > > unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of > > thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we > > can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on. > > Richard P. Feynman > > > Hubris is the assumption of truth - that some ideas have been so > > conclusively validated that they are beyond criticism except by > > uninformed rednecks. Let's take Newton as an example of assumption of > > truth. Newtonian laws are a nice approximation - but they are not > > exact. They fail at high velocities - they do not by any means > > provide a complete explanation of relativistic space and time. I > > think evolution is similar - works well enough in a Newtonian universe > > - but might fall over if we ever understood the nature of time in a > > relativistic universe. > > > Climate science is in this boat - if we start with a catalogue of what > > we don't know, partially know, can't know and don't want to know -it > > puts a severe limit on what is known. But people don't want to know > > that. They have to fall back on logical positivism - which is the > > antecedant of post modernism and relativism - because for reasons > > involving the human condition we need to think we know what the future > > holds. Is this the central objection to chaos theory? Populations, > > economies, nervous systems, hearts and climate are all chaotic and > > this doesn't bear thinking about? > > > All the people in your linked blog are still thinking in terms of > > proximate cause and effect. Newtoniam thinking in a chaotic > > universe. If I say that this categorically and emphatically isn't > > right and you are a fool for believing it - it is an example of > > hubris. If I say that climate might not be a complex and dynamic > > system - and pigs might fly - it leaves open the door to truth.- Hide > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
