tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post7100570913275217715..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Father of chaos theory explains why it is impossible to predict weather & climate beyond 3 weeksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-68034462810778791132013-12-11T09:11:39.942-08:002013-12-11T09:11:39.942-08:00http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/on-the-futil...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/on-the-futility-of-long-range-numerical-climate-prediction/#comment-1497743<br /><br />Scott Wilmot Bennett says:<br />December 11, 2013 at 6:37 am<br />TB says:<br />December 11, 2013 at 3:27 am<br />“Climate is NOT weather projected into the future. Climate creates weather – hang on – in the sense that the Earth acts as a heat engine. It receives energy from the Sun and it is reflected/absorbed/re-radiated back to space. Only two factors essentially govern it’s working – energy in vs energy out, this is constrained by albedo and radiative forcing (and for past epochs by orbital eccentricity). Weather is the chaos in the system – the noise on the general climate trend (up or down). To suppose that climate is weather projected forward is missing seeing the wood by only seeing the trees.”<br /><br />This wrong in so many ways, I don’t know what to point out first!<br /><br />1. The Earth is not in equilibrium, it does not have ‘A Climate’ in the sense you use it:<br /><br />“Moreover, it hardly needs stating that the Earth does not have just one temperature. It is not in global thermodynamic equilibrium – neither within itself nor with its surroundings.<br />It is not even approximately so for the climatological questions asked of the temperature<br />field. Even when viewed from space at such a distance that the Earth appears as a point<br />source, the radiation from it deviates from a black body distribution and so has no one<br />temperature [6]. There is also no unique “temperature at the top of the atmosphere”. The<br />temperature field of the Earth as a whole is not thermodynamically representable by a single<br />temperature.”<br /><br />[6] Essex C., Kennedy D., Berry R. S., How hot is radiation?, Am. J. Phys., 71 (2003),<br />969–978.<br /><br />2. To talk about the Earth’s ‘climate’ as if it was independent of its Geography, let alone its Geology is absurd. I’ll list some of the ‘essential factors’ below:<br /><br />a. Oblate spheroid, rotating on axis creating uneven “energy in”! We know these as the seasons! Precession is in flux.<br />b. Diameter and hence, speed of rotation at equator faster, creating Coriolis effect, which dominates the global circulation patterns (The trade winds). Creating the major climatic zones (Desert/Jungle)<br />c. The shape and geographical distribution of land masses and bodies of water (All of which are in flux).<br />e. The Earth’s magnetic field, without which, there would be no atmosphere (It would have blown away in the solar wind)<br />f. The Moon and it’s effect on rotation and tides<br />g. The earth’s elemental composition. Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe yet most of the Earths is locked in the core. “Energy in” and carbon-dioxide are utilised by all life on earth and much is stored as biological mass via photosynthesis.<br /><br />I probably didn’t point out the most important but you get the idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50865622835293575802013-12-11T09:08:11.637-08:002013-12-11T09:08:11.637-08:00ferdberple says:
December 11, 2013 at 6:45 am
TB s...ferdberple says:<br />December 11, 2013 at 6:45 am<br />TB says:<br />December 11, 2013 at 3:27 am<br />Weather is the chaos in the system – the noise on the general climate trend (up or down).<br />============<br />That is what the models believe, but it is an over simplification. If it was true then climate would be predictable, in the sense that it would be subject to the Law of Large Numbers. Over time you would expect to see a statistically predictable trend. ie: you could predict if climate was statistically more likely to warm or cool.<br /><br />However, that is not what you see. At all time scales climate is a fractal distribution. It does not converge about an average, because it has no constant mean. As a result most statistical analysis of climate is misleading at best.<br /><br />Weather is not the noise in the climate system. Weather and Climate are measurements of the same physical process at different time scales. As you expand the time scale, weather becomes climate and remains as unpredictable.<br /><br />ferdberple says:<br />December 11, 2013 at 6:59 am<br />So what is a fractal distribution and how does it differ? When one graphs any physical process, typically you get some sort of a wavy line. If you expand the time scale, if the line becomes less wavy then the process is becoming more predictable over time.<br /><br />If however the line does not become less wavy, if it maintains the same irregularities at different scales, then you likely have a fractal distribution. This sort of process does not become statistically more predictable as you increase the time scale.<br /><br />Now look at a graph of earth’s average temperature over the past million years as compared to the past 1000 years or the past 1 year or the past day? Does climate show any less variability at longer scales? No. If anything climate over the past 1 million years shows greater variability, which shows that climate is no more predictable than weather. The farther you look into the future, the less reliable the prediction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-73638381429112680402013-10-22T12:10:12.366-07:002013-10-22T12:10:12.366-07:00just one example of many papers showing vast diffe...just one example of many papers showing vast differences between climate models based upon initialization assumptions, published today:<br /><br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1969-4MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-17996326906836928942013-10-22T07:46:29.258-07:002013-10-22T07:46:29.258-07:00A simple "no change" model outperforms I...A simple "no change" model outperforms IPCC GCMs by factor of 7 times<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/paper-no-change-climate-model-is-7_02.html<br /><br /><br />as does a simple harmonic model<br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/simple-climate-model-outperforms-ipcc.htmlMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-81428229430650822442013-10-14T09:00:13.778-07:002013-10-14T09:00:13.778-07:00"no change" model outperforms IPCC clima..."no change" model outperforms IPCC climate models<br /><br />http://blog.heartland.org/2013/10/the-science-fiction-of-ipcc-climate-models/MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-3764904661587952712013-10-14T08:45:26.172-07:002013-10-14T08:45:26.172-07:00http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/words-of-wisdom-...http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/words-of-wisdom-from-ed-lorenz/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-90187000974077122812013-10-09T23:29:09.183-07:002013-10-09T23:29:09.183-07:00Of course I don't endorse the IPCC idea that t...Of course I don't endorse the IPCC idea that the mean value of short-time incorrect models can give long-time correct mean values. But it is possible that short-time correct models (weather) can give correct long-time mean values (climate). Maybe this was not a misconception, just something which was not stated.Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-69433917199763386432013-10-09T15:12:26.432-07:002013-10-09T15:12:26.432-07:00Hi Claes
I'm not taking the extreme position ...Hi Claes<br /><br />I'm not taking the extreme position that it's not possible to know with reasonable certainty that the temperature will remain relatively stable over the next century, given knowledge of past climate.<br /><br />Likewise, I doubt you endorse the IPCC's use of the mean of an ensemble of models, each of which is admittedly wrong and based upon erroneous assumptions, as having the ability to project AGW, right?<br /><br />Do you think that a simple stochastic model based upon past climate changes might be superior to the IPCC models?<br /><br />Perhaps you could suggest how you would rewrite any "misconceptions" above.<br /><br />ThanksMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-91234609744499166872013-10-09T13:08:02.224-07:002013-10-09T13:08:02.224-07:00I think there are some misconceptions in the above...I think there are some misconceptions in the above presentation: It is true that pointwise precise predictions (in space and time) cannot be made in a system like the Lorenz equations (or weather) with strong pointwise sensitivity to perturbations in e.g. initial conditions. But that does not mean that mean values cannot be predicted: For example the number of turns in each wing of the Lorenz butterfly traced by an accurately computed trajectory, shows to be about the same; it is the exact timing of the switches from one wing to the other which is difficult to predict, like predicting the exact timing of a low pressure zone approaching Scandinavia. Yet the average amount of rain or average temperature is pretty predictable. For example, global temperature has not changed much over the last century. A forecast saying that it will remain constant until 2100 is not sensitive to any data and may well be correct. Claes Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07411413338950388898noreply@blogger.com