But, we already knew that from experience. However, a lot of models still treat climate as a mostly or near linear process, and that’s why they aren’t performing particularly well at even predicting the present.
(via the Hockeyschtick) A paper published July in Science says “the climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning that small changes in one part can lead to much larger changes elsewhere.”
“Some proposed mechanisms for transmission of major climate change events between the North Pacific and North Atlantic predict opposing patterns of variations; others suggest synchronization. Resolving this conflict has implications for regulation of poleward heat transport and global climate change.”
“When the climates of the more local high-latitude Pacific and Atlantic sectors varied in parallel, large, abrupt climate fluctuations occurred on a more global scale.”
One of many examples would be the interactions of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [PDO] and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation [AMO], which are sometimes aligned in the same positive phase to produce abrupt global warming, sometimes aligned in the same negative phase to produce abrupt global cooling, and sometimes in opposite phases which “cancel” their net global effect.
Systems which are “highly nonlinear” and chaotic are extremely difficult to impossible to predict or model. The projections of current climate models show that the models really boil down to just a simplistic 1:1 linear function of CO2 levels:
Needless to say, modeling the “highly nonlinear” and chaotic global climate system using a linear function of a single independent variable – CO2 – is nonsense and an essentially worthless exercise. Damaging the entire global economy and basing policy decisions upon such models is pure insanity.
From the AAAS Journal: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/444.short
Science 25 July 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6195 pp. 444-448 DOI: 10.1126/science.1252000
Abstract:
Some proposed mechanisms for transmission of major climate change events between the North Pacific and North Atlantic predict opposing patterns of variations; others suggest synchronization. Resolving this conflict has implications for regulation of poleward heat transport and global climate change. New multidecadal-resolution foraminiferal oxygen isotope records from the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) reveal sudden shifts between intervals of synchroneity and asynchroneity with the North Greenland Ice Core Project (NGRIP) δ18O record over the past 18,000 years. Synchronization of these regions occurred 15,500 to 11,000 years ago, just prior to and throughout the most abrupt climate transitions of the last 20,000 years, suggesting that dynamic coupling of North Pacific and North Atlantic climates may lead to critical transitions in Earth’s climate system.
Editor’s Summary:
Climates conspire together to make big changes
The regional climates of the North Pacific and North Atlantic fluttered between synchrony and asynchrony during the last deglaciation, with correspondingly more and less intense effects on the rest of the world, researchers have found. The climate system can be highly nonlinear, meaning that small changes in one part can lead to much larger changes elsewhere. This type of behavior is especially evident during transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions, when climate is affected by a wide variety of time-varying influences and is relatively unstable. Praetorius and Mix present a record of North Pacific climate over the past 18,000 years. When the climates of the more local high-latitude Pacific and Atlantic sectors varied in parallel, large, abrupt climate fluctuations occurred on a more global scale.
Steven Mosher says:
July 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm
“Courtney.
If you or anyone else knows specifically why models don’t work then collect your Nobel prize.
You don’t. The op doesn’t.
And claims to knowledge require some proof.”
Mosher. Your English Major shows. First, you should try to understand the DEFINITION of CHAOS.
After that, it will become obvious to you that by that very definition it is impossible to predict a chaotic system with a simulation of limited precision over longer periods.
This is not political science; it is mathematics.
Read the paragraph here, it will show you that Chaos Theory is slapping you right in the face.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Introduction
If it’s non-linear, any predictability is an illusion. At first it’ll seduce you with the appearance of predictability, but as soon as it builds your huberis, it drifts away from preditability. Non-linear systems seem to act of their own capricious volition, but it’s not volition, it’s just the nature of the mathematics. Deterministic nonperiodic flow is the seminal work, “Chaos: Making a New Science” by James Gleick brings the concepts into the reach of us mere mortals.
Bart says:
July 25, 2014 at 10:41 am
“I believe the climate system can be modeled. I just don’t believe they have the right equations.”
———————
YUP, and I truly believe that next year’s Super Bowl game can be modeled ….. based on all the factual statistics of past NFL and Super Bowl games.
And likewise, I just don’t believe they have the right equations to do said.
Eritas
Climate models ( all of them) does not matter if either solar based or co2 based will never be able to predict the climate because of limited inaccurate data, thresholds that exist and the non linearity of the climate system.
I want to, temporarily, come to the defense of Climate Models in the realm of chaos. It is certainly true that atmospheric processes on a spinning night-day globe are highly non-linear and are so chaotic that they defy detailed predictions on afternoon thunderstorms to next weeks rainfall predictions. But given the chaos of weather, it does not necessarily follow that climate is chaotic.
At the atomic and molecular level, the Brownian motion of particles is chaotic of Nobel Prize winning proportions. But at the macro scale, the Ideal Gas Law is anything but chaotic. Uncertainty in initial conditions do not doom future PV=nRT predictions.
At the quantum mechanical level, the decay of any group of atoms in unpredictable, but at milligram sized sample the radioactivity can be predicted with high precision.
The growth of a tree is a mind-boggling, multidimentional fractal exposition of cell growth in varieties we are barely able to enumerate. Yet, foresters can predict with reasonable error bars the board-feet per acre of wood they a company can expect to harvest twenty years hence.
We might not be able to make weather predictions 3 years out. But we can certainly comfortably make predictions that it will snow in Breckenridge, Colorado, several times in the month of January 2017. Whether the winter of 2017 in Breckenridge will be a good ski season, average, or a bad ski season, the prediction that profits and plans depend upon, is a much tougher, possibly chaotic problem.
So can macro models of physically chaotic processes make useful predictions within the uncertainty bounds that matter? For the ideal gas law, for radioactivity, for forestry harvests, for the opening of ski resorts, yes they can. They have been proven to make prediction upon which to justify investment decisions. These example have a history of predictions that show they are useful.
But when it comes to climate models, they are increasingly found wanting in their long term predictions. The models own record betrays them. Whether or not the fault is chaotic process, there is something important missing (or mistakenly included) in the models.
Stephen Rasey says:
July 26, 2014 at 11:53 am
“Yet, foresters can predict with reasonable error bars the board-feet per acre of wood they a company can expect to harvest twenty years hence.”
—————-
YUP, and the Ag-Tech’ers can predict with reasonable error bars the bushel per acre of corn that a company can expect to harvest at the end of each season’s planting.
But if those companies depend upon Mother Nature to “seed” the crop they want to harvest ….. then they are in big trouble.
=============
“But we can certainly comfortably make predictions that it will snow in Breckenridge, Colorado, several times in the month of January 2017.”
—————-
YUP, but iffen it doesn’t snow sufficient amounts they have “snow-making” machines to CTA.
=============
“But when it comes to climate models, ……. there is something important missing (or mistakenly included) in the models”
————-
YUP, there are several important things not included in the models, … but more importantly, …. they have included in their models their “junk science” claims about the “warming” affect of atmospheric CO2 ….. in order to prove that their calculated increase in temperatures agrees with the average yearly increase in CO2.
It is utterly silly to pre-specify what a specific input data (CO2) will have on the output results of a “modeling” process …… if the “modeling” process was specifically designed to determine what effect, if any, said specific input data (CO2) will have on the output results.
Me thinks one might call that …. “circular modeling”.
Samuel C Cogar says:
July 27, 2014 at 9:11 am
==========================================
Hello, SamC, are you still hanging around the Vine? I couldn’t take it anymore there, but it was interesting for a time and it did lead me to here.
@ur momisugly goldminor says:
And hello to you, too, goldminor.
Yup, I’m still posting to the Vine. Its part of my daily entertainment, ya know.
I keep verbally “beating” them down and there are only 2 or 3 of the lefty liberal “hardliners” still pushing their “junk science” agenda.
It’s amazing how a little “common sense reasoning” will eventually get their “attention” and they realize their self administered embarrassment is not worth the effort.
1) – long term stability of patterns (Stephen Rasey was right):
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
The large-scale structure of the atmospheric circulation varies from year to year, but the basic climatological structure remains fairly constant. Individual weather systems – mid-latitude depressions, or tropical convective cells – occur “randomly”, and it is accepted that weather cannot be predicted beyond a fairly short limit: perhaps a month in theory, or (currently) about ten days in practice (see Chaos theory and Butterfly effect). Nonetheless, as the climate is the average of these systems and patterns – where and when they tend to occur again and again – it is stable over longer periods of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
2) meridional vs zonal pattern – The Met:
===============
Normally the jet stream runs fairly directly from west to east and pushes weather systems through quite quickly. However, sometimes the steering flow of the jet stream can meander (a bit like a river), curving north and south as it heads west across the Atlantic. This is called a meridional flow, with the more linear west to east flow being called a zonal flow.
During a meridional flow areas of low pressure can become stuck over the UK leading to prolonged periods of rain and strong winds. [and ice and snow] During the winter the polar front jet stream moves further south leading to a greater risk of unsettled weather, and even snow if cold arctic air masses move south over the UK..
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/learn-about-the-weather/how-weather-works/global-circulation-patterns
===============
A year of real world circulation & precipitation:
The moral of the story is this: if the Russian school of meteorology is correct, we have 30 years (approximately) of colder (on average) weather in store – on average. The UN FAO predicted meridional pattern for around 30 years starting approximately 2004 using the “Russian” pattern matching method. Looks like they got it right.
One thing for pretty sure, …..“if the Russian school of meteorology is correct,”….. then a major socio-economic disaster is on the horizon.
With the shutdown and/or phase out of coal-fired generating plants, then … “30 years (approximately) of colder (on average) weather in store” …. means there will surely be more cloudy skies, rain, freezing rain and snow …. which is not a good thing for the proper functioning of solar panels, wind turbines and/or the growing & harvesting of bio-fuel producing crops.
And I have visions of those “wind turbine farms” ……. looking like a “tree farm” after a severe ice-storm did its dastardly deed of destruction.
I’ll let some mathematician calculate the “added weight” on those 143 ft turbine blades if say ½” or more of ice freezes on their exterior surfaces.
I’ll let some mathematician calculate the “added weight” on those 143 ft turbine blades if say ½” or more of ice freezes on their exterior surfaces.
While you are at it, ask the mathematician what will happen as that 1/2 inch of ice partially melts and flies off three spinning turbine blades unevenly.