(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Climate is an inherently chaotic system, and as such its behavior can not be predicted.
Answer: Firstly, let's make sure we define climate: an average of weather patterns over some meaningful time period. We may thus discount the chaotic annual fluctuations of global mean temperature. That's weather, and one or two anomalous years does not represent a climate shift.
Quite a few people believe that climate is a chaotic system, and maybe on some large-scale level it is. But it is not chaotic on anything approaching the time scales of which humans need to be mindful.
The notion that climate is chaotic tends to be taken as a given, with little supporting argument. Certainly the march of the seasons is nice and regular, determined directly by the orbital inclination of the earth. If a large volcanic eruption occurs, global temperature drops for a few years quite predictably. Diurnal cycles show the direct influence of insolation changes on the system.
Clearly, if you turn down the sun, the temperature drops. Clearly, if you throw a bunch of SO2 into the stratosphere, the temperature drops. Clearly, if you turn the surface completely white, the temperature drops. And clearly, if you double the amount of an important GHG in the atmosphere, the temperature rises.
What about longer timeframes, say, glacial/interglacial cycles? These are by no means perfectly regular, but they are far from random. They are also a broadly deterministic effect following from a known cause: orbital variations.
Granted, the data is quite chaotic on the multi-century time scale, though it clearly follows a 120Kyr cycle. But who's to say that if we had enough data and understanding, these spikes and dips could not be thoroughly explained by solar influences, volcanic eruptions, greenhouse gas changes, ice sheet dynamics, etc.?
The ocean-atmosphere climate system is certainly a complex system, and capable of some surprising behaviours, but there is no evidence that it is chaotic in the formal sense.
I see no problem with speaking in a meaningful way about future expectations. Model outputs do produce specific year-to-year fluctuations -- fluctuations that are not hindcasted well (that's the weather, after all) -- but nobody's interested in knowing the exact temperature of any particular year. It is the decadal and century trends we want to anticipate.
It is the climate's broadly deterministic responses to forcings that are of interest, and all evidence points to such determinism.
(The original article has a great deal of interesting discussion under it, for those with the stomach for talk of strange attractors, dynamical systems, and stochastic processes.)
What to make of the new climate poll
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 3:45 am
04 Mar 2007
No, complex dynamic systems with more than 3 independent variables are taken to be chaotic.
Clearly, if you turn down the sun, the temperature drops. Clearly, if you throw a bunch of SO2 into the stratosphere, the temperature drops. Clearly, if you turn the surface completely white, the temperature drops. And clearly, if you double the amount of an important GHG in the atmosphere, the temperature rises.
But these are single independent variables. y=f(x), Temp = f(SO2). Yes, you can strip away single variable relationships, but they don't add up to "climate".
I see no problem with speaking in a meaningful way about future expectations.
I therefore challenge you:
Present to us, the best of the best "climate models" here on Grist. But not models that explain the past, but models that predict future behavior.
I would like to see 50 and 100 year projections, with 5 year intervals. These models should show the relationship of anthrogenic CO2 gases to Global Mean Temperature.
In fact, why not a year by year model? There should be a definitive measure of how antrogenic CO2 is defined.
Then we can bet a beer or something on whether (pun intended) the model fits the results or not!
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
Werdna Posted 2:52 am
22 Mar 2007
I am not up on my chaos theory mathematics, but I don't think, as jabailo says above, that it has anything to do with a number of independent variables (Wikipedia says nothing on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_system).
I guess the best way would be to have counter-examples. Although, a colony of ants can be represented by a chaotic system, we can still predict that they will make an ant hill. We may be able to predict its size and its depth. We may even be able to predict how fast it will grow, etc.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:22 am
22 Mar 2007
Clearly you are not familiar with complex systems. Presence of more than three variables does not mean chaos. It means that our brains are less capable of understanding these variables and their interactions, with the effect of appearing chaotic to someone less knowledgeable in the field. This is due to us thinking in three dimensions along a timeline. Clearly, there are plenty of systems (including anthropogenic) that experience more than three variables at one time. How do you think a plane flies?
What you are saying with y=f(x) is that we cannot create multiple regressions. Seems that one semester of statistics for me has just been completely erased by your post. Wow, you must be a real powerhouse in theoretical statistics. Models that 'explain the past' have to exist, that is how models are validated and if validated, then projections for the future can be made using these same models.
Permalink
bkalafut Posted 5:53 pm
26 Mar 2007
I think you're confused. There's a result--a clever one, at that--in the theory of discrete-time dynamical systems that says that the existence of a cycle of period three implies the existence of a cycle of every other possible period, sometimes called the "Period Three Implies Chaos" theorem.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:22 pm
29 Apr 2007
http://www.physics.iitm.ac.in/~suresh/shaastra/index.html ...
You Read It Here First
Permalink
DeepishThought Posted 1:27 pm
30 May 2007
Interestingly, the link embedded in this comment leads to a Wikipedia article on chaos theory that actually includes the following comment:
"Everyday examples of chaotic systems include weather and climate."
The idea that the climate, "is an inherently chaotic system, and as such its behavior can not be predicted." is important and needs to be addressed, but your article could clearly use some work.
I would try something along the lines of:
The scientific term 'chaotic' has a very specific meaning. The behavior of chaotic systems are not unpredictable or random. Chaotic systems develop in a deterministic way and are therefore, in principal, totally predictable.
In practice however, chaotic systems are very difficult to predict because their behavior is extremely sensitive to their initial conditions. Make a slight error in measuring the initial conditions and observed behavior tends to depart very rapidly from predicted behavior.
The atmosphere is the classic example of a chaotic system, which is why predicting the weather more than a few days in advance is so frustratingly difficult.
However, if we were able to precisely measure the current state of the atmosphere and we fully understood all rules governing its development over time, we would be able to perfectly predict the weather.
As it happens we can only roughly measure the current state of the atmosphere and we don't fully understand all the rules that govern its operation. However, this does not mean that weather is completely unpredictable. Our approximations are good enough that we can make usably accurate predications over limited time horizons.
This leads to the obvious question, if weather predictions are next to worthless more than a couple of weeks out, how can we seriously make predict climate decades or even centuries in advance?
The answer is that 'climate' implies a much less specific prediction than 'weather'. The less specific the prediction, the longer the time horizon over which we can predict with some degree of confidence.
We can predict with reasonable accuracy the high temperature in Baltimore a few days in advance. We can also make a pretty reasonable prediction of the average summer high temperature in Baltimore in February. What can't predict in February, at least not any better than a random guess, is the high temperature on the 4th of July in Baltimore.
Average annual global temperature is about the least specific environmental measurement immaginable, so it is, unsurprisingly, something we can predict with reasonable confidence over very long timescales.
Having said that, I'm not particularly enamored with long range climate models. They inherently include all kinds of unconfirmed assumptions about how the atmosphere-ocean-ice system operates and about future economic activity (which is not famously easy to predict). It doesn't matter how much computing power you throw at the problem, a wild ass guess is still a wild ass guess.
The fact that the models can back predict historical environmental behavior proves absolutely nothing since that was exactly the data used to generate the models in the first place. You can buy any number of software packages that back predict stock prices beautifully. Unfortunately this does not make them effective predictors of future.
In my view we shouldn't be addressing global warming because the models are scary. We should address global warming because we don't know what the hell is going to happen, which is really scary. If you are driving blindfolded, taking your foot off the gas is a pretty good idea.
Permalink
trickytank Posted 10:55 pm
14 Jun 2007
Permalink
warreno Posted 2:32 am
07 Jul 2007
My suggestion is that you could start up a mutual fund similar to VICEX (find a catchy name) which is based on AGW being wrong is some way. To be creditable though, you will need a climate scientist who thinks they can make money on such a venture, which is a very tall order. For those ready to buck consensus, who know what they're doing, there's money to be made.
On the other hand, many hurricane projects are readily supported by private capital, and it seems likely that climate change research is getting there.
Wrong headed
The single best model approach is just wrong headed. First off, this is just too important to rely on one model, and not have consistency checks. Hurricane prediction very successfully uses several models. Over the years each model had various strengths, and these could be used in other models contributing to improvement. When a model disagrees now, forecasters have a better sense of how and why, and can make adjustments.
Permalink
brasidas Posted 3:31 pm
10 Jan 2008
Regardless, the author's assertion does not measure up to the observed behavior. Weather is chaotic, and where recurring patterns continue, the parameters observed in a time frame that appear stable are in what's known as a subcritical region. Those parameters that are observed in a time frame with wildly varying and unpredictable results tend to be within a supercritical region, which can be the result of variable perturbations of the system under observation.
Permalink
clarinetmeister Posted 6:21 am
26 Apr 2008
Likewise, while anthropogenic carbon emissions will undoubtedly cause the world to warm up, the very nature of Earth's climate makes predicting the weather on any given day several years from now impossible.
Permalink
sciencegeek Posted 8:37 am
08 Jul 2008
A chaotic system is one that obeys exact laws, but is highly sensitive to initial conditions. Since Heisenberg says that exact specification of initial conditions is impossible, no chaotic system is 100% predictable.
Another law of quantum mechanics says that all movement is essentially random and is predictable only in terms of probability. Predicting the behavior of an individual particle is pretty much impossible. But when bazillions of them get together, you can use probability to predict the average behavior to amazing precision.
Permalink
sciencegeek Posted 8:43 am
08 Jul 2008
Weather and climate are similar. Trying to figure out where all the clouds will be on Feb. 23rd, 2009 is nuts. However, predicting the average temperature for the whole month of February in a given location will not be off by very much, even though weather is chaotic.
Permalink
Al Tekhasski Posted 3:01 pm
05 Aug 2008
Permalink