Climate Policy

[weakwarrior]

Hi,
Linear in math means a lot more than a straight line relationship between two quantities related by one variable...
Perhaps by following the link above, and reading from there, you'll be able to get a better grasp on the subject.

Yea - that article was over my head too unless you are using Fourier transforms for "In military tactical formations, "linear formations" were adapted from phalanx-like formations of pike protected by handgunners towards shallow formations of handgunners protected by progressively fewer pikes. This kind of formation would get thinner until its extreme in the age of Wellington with the 'Thin Red Line'."

But if you are then Fourier transform means something other than what I thought and so we're back at the beginning.

[weakwarrior]

A nonlinear system is any problem where the variables to be solved for, cannot be written as a linear combination of independent components.

Aha!

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . in the age of Wellington with the 'Thin Red Line'."

I believe that that was the operator that transformed Napoleon from an emperor to a prisoner. Highly advanced math, indeed.:whistling:

. . . so we're back at the beginning.

OK, let's try an example.

First, the basis of the Fourier analysis is that any continuous periodic function can be expressed as a sum of a specific type of trigonometric terms. The important concept is that it is a sum of terms -- a linear combination.

Second, there are relationships (including some partial differential equations) that have multiple solutions such that the sum of the solutions is also a solution. Again, the important concept is that it is a sum of solutions -- again a linear combination.

So, in this example, if a general term of the Fourier series is a solution of the relationship, then so is the sum of all the terms. In this sense, the whole resulting Fourier series is the 'complete solution' to the relationship, and the problem is reduced to finding the coefficients of the Fourier terms.

However, if the second condition is not met -- if the relationship is such that the sum of two solutions is not a solution -- then the problem is said to be non-linear. A given trigonometric term might be a solution of the problem, but the sum of such terms is not. Thus, the Fourier analysis does not apply and is guaranteed to yield incorrect results.

Note that the fact that the Fourier analysis does not apply does not mean one cannot calculate a Fourier series for the problem. One can. Consider a problem which we can both model and observe.

If the problem is linear, we can calculate the Fourier series of the initial conditions, then we can calculate the time evolution of the Fourier series, and finally we can (in principle) calculate the final condition, a function that is the inverse of the series. If we did that, then the calculated and observed final conditions would be in agreement within experimental error.

If the problem is not linear, we could still go through the process of calculating a Fourier series, of propagating that series through time, and of calculating the inverse. The difference would be that the predicted final condition and the observed final condition would differ, the difference being greater the greater the non-linearity of the system is.

I'm not sure how useful all this is, but I hope it helps.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

You have the same wrong assumptions on overpopulation. Sure, if the world was full of Americans, it would never be able to sustain the amount of people we have now. But as it is, 90% of the world population could vastly improve it's standards of living by getting rid of just the other 10%.

Bring it, bitch.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Bring it, bitch.

Be nice, trolls are an endangered species;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, *I* care. I doubt if the universe does.

--Pete

It doesn't, as it's too busy beta testing Diablo III.

Do you doubt me?

Blizz announced D II in 2010 or 2011. Typical Blizz delay. 2012. Mayan calendar. 2012. Universe tests D III well into dec 2012. Release date again looming, Blizz delays yet again, and The Universe, this time, says in sheerest frustration.

"Screw this, I Reboot."

In a big way.

The apocalypse really does arrive on time. The Mayans called it, all those years ago.

This scenario makes the World Stone sequence after D II seem like me tossing a Miller Pony bottle at a mail box.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, *I* care. I doubt if the universe does.

It doesn't, as it's too busy beta testing Diablo III.

Do you doubt me?

Blizz announced D II in 2010 or 2011. Typical Blizz delay. 2012. Mayan calendar. 2012. Universe tests D III well into dec 2012. Release date again looming, Blizz delays yet again, and The Universe, this time, says in sheerest frustration.

"Screw this, I Reboot."

In a big way.

The apocalypse really does arrive on time. The Mayans called it, all those years ago.

This scenario makes the World Stone sequence after D II seem like me tossing a Miller Pony bottle at a mail box.

Added later:

Be nice, trolls are an endangered species

I appreciate your intentions, but when the only one of three nation states that hold the capability of waxing any signifncant percentage of the globe's populace is being proposed as "the one to fall when push comes to shove over energy and population," proposed in light of a great revolt of the sick, lame and lazy, not to mention our dear and parasitic European friends, I think it's high time that the fool who presents the foolish be spit at and upon, with great force.

But I'll maybe just lurk for a bit longer before I rear my graying head again.;)

Occhi

[weakwarrior]

I believe that that was the operator that transformed Napoleon from an emperor to a prisoner. Highly advanced math, indeed.

:)

Second, there are relationships (including some partial differential equations) that have multiple solutions such that the sum of the solutions is also a solution. Again, the important concept is that it is a sum of solutions -- again a linear combination.

This is what I didn't realize - that this too is called linear. I took linear algebra but forgot it by the time I was done so I was stuck on linearity like a line is linear. The rest I get - thanks.

[eppie]

Here is a better explanation from Skeptical Science...

[i][indent]In fact, a study came out just a few weeks ago (Stott 2007) that confirms CO2 increases around 1000 years after temperature rise.

First this is done using modelling. And starting with CO2 concentrations in ice. When using the antarctic ice values the CO2 concentrations went up at the same time the temperature went up. If however also using the ice values of greenland it seem there is a lag of around a 1000 years.
First, I find 1 or 2 measurements both a bit little for these conclusions. Also when in their conclusions they authors only talk about the temperature of the anatarctic oceans. Further, you are correct to state that a conclusions that heating uo will increase CO2 concentrations doesn't mean that the first heating up was cause by higher CO2 concentrations in the first place.


2nd I think we can discard the concern some forum members had that scientists that go against the CO2 theory are not allowed to publish.

[kandrathe]

First this is done using modeling. And starting with CO2 concentrations in ice. When using the antarctic ice values the CO2 concentrations went up at the same time the temperature went up. If however also using the ice values of Greenland it seem there is a lag of around a 1000 years.

Going out into the arctic and antarctic to gather evidence is hardly modeling. Perhaps, one might argue with the lines the deduced from the evidence. Another question then is that temperatures begin to cool, while CO2 levels remain high. Then after cooling, CO2 levels begin to drop naturally with cooling. Again, we are talking about the natural ebb and flow of temperature changes without human interference. I'm not sure we can be *certain* yet what effect we are having on the climate. But, as I've said before, I'm an advocate for ecological purity (leave no footprints).

First, I find 1 or 2 measurements both a bit little for these conclusions. Also when in their conclusions they authors only talk about the temperature of the antarctic oceans. Further, you are correct to state that a conclusions that heating uo will increase CO2 concentrations doesn't mean that the first heating up was cause by higher CO2 concentrations in the first place.

I would guess that other peoples peer reviewed analysis of their methodology would disclose defects. Multiple ice cores from northern and southern latitudes would trap thousands of years of climate information in the ice. I would guess then that taking multiple samples would corroborate that a single sample did not have a unique defect, so that multiple samples would show the same trend over a large geography.

2nd I think we can discard the concern some forum members had that scientists that go against the CO2 theory are not allowed to publish.

It doesn't go against the anthropomorphic CO2 theory, but it does show that rising temperatures may result in a naturally higher CO2 level. It also shows that CO2 is decoupled from temperature in some manner we don't understand. Our human contribution may serve to accelerate or disturb an already natural phenomena.

Here is another article discussing this paper.<blockquote>"Water’s salinity and temperature are properties that can be used to trace its origin – and the warming deep water appeared to come from the Antarctic Ocean, the scientists wrote. This water then was transported northward over 1,000 years via well-known deep-sea currents, a conclusion supported by carbon-dating evidence."</blockquote>This paper also shows how perturbations of local climate can effect the global climate, in that small increases in the solar radiation in the antarctic led to retreating ice sheets, which lowered the albedo of the antarctic which further increases warming. The result of the antarctic warming and natural release of CO2 from the oceans, eventually made its way northward over 1000 years and resulted in the retreat of northern ice sheets (glaciers). I've heard some reports that indicate that antarctic ice sheets are (on average) growing, which will result in more radiation reflected in the antarctic and possibly a colder ocean. Satellite data shows that sea ice has shrunk west of the Antarctic Peninsula and grown in the Ross Sea.

[kandrathe]

Here is an article on Waxman-Markey by Dr. James Hansen (Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies). Dr. Hansen is a somewhat controversial figure in this debate, but I thought it would add an interesting counterpoint.

For example, the famous physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson said, "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.” Regarding his and others heresy on global warming Dyson says, "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." This resonates with me, as I'm also a subscriber to the heresy of being an open skeptic of this complex topic.

[Jester]

For example, the famous physicist Dr. Freeman Dyson said, "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers... Hansen has turned his science into ideology.” Regarding his and others heresy on global warming Dyson says, "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." This resonates with me, as I'm also a subscriber to the heresy of being an open skeptic of this complex topic.

With all due respect to one of the great living physicists, Freeman Dyson giving his opinion on climate science is kind of like Steve Gould talking about the big bang. It's way, way out of his field.

But, then, I suppose if you've constructed the idea in your head that this is some kind of religious issue for climate scientists, setting yourself up as a "heretic" is a much more satisfying position than merely a scientist with a different opinion. It has a nice contrarian savour to it, and doesn't require a comprehensive analysis of the evidence.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

With all due respect to one of the great living physicists, Freeman Dyson giving his opinion on climate science is kind of like Steve Gould talking about the big bang. It's way, way out of his field.

Which Steve Gould? But never mind, it doesn't matter. Dyson is a genius, his opinion on all subjects deserves serious consideration.

But, then, I suppose if you've constructed the idea in your head that this is some kind of religious issue for climate scientists, . . .

The reason why many think climatologists are howler monkeys is because so many climatologists behave like howler monkeys. It's the old "if it walks like a duck . . . " reasoning -- and it's right more often than not.

. . . doesn't require a comprehensive analysis of the evidence.

Nope. Just a good BS meter.

--Pete

[Jester]

Dyson is a genius, his opinion on all subjects deserves serious consideration.

Sure. And if he wants to turn his phenomenal intellect to climate science, I'm sure his contribution would be very valuable. But that isn't what he's doing. He isn't applying his mathematical mind to the problems at hand. He's just sniping from the sidelines. I feel no more obligated to believe his ruminations about the politics of climate change than I do his beliefs about the role of religion in science. Interesting, maybe, but certainly not a priori correct.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

With all due respect to one of the great living physicists, Freeman Dyson giving his opinion on climate science is kind of like Steve Gould talking about the big bang. It's way, way out of his field.

But, then, I suppose if you've constructed the idea in your head that this is some kind of religious issue for climate scientists, setting yourself up as a "heretic" is a much more satisfying position than merely a scientist with a different opinion. It has a nice contrarian savour to it, and doesn't require a comprehensive analysis of the evidence.

Actually, I agree with you as for Dyson commenting on climate science. He routinely claims to not know much about it. My synergy with Dyson is in the understanding of what is science, as opposed to what Hansen is doing.

Edit: Oh, and as for the "heretic" label. Blame the NY Times. I'm no Freeman Dyson, but I'm the same kind of contrarian or skeptic.

[Jester]

Actually, I agree with you as for Dyson commenting on climate science. He routinely claims to not know much about it. My synergy with Dyson is in the understanding of what is science, as opposed to what Hansen is doing.

He routinely claims not to know much about it... and then throws the considerable weight of his opinion behind trashing it in public and in print.

I'm not going to say that scientists should simply stay in their own narrow field and never, ever look out at the world (quite the opposite), but it strikes me as irresponsible to not just express skepticism, but mount a full on attack on an entire discipline without actually doing the legwork. Even incredibly brilliant scientists have made painful blunders when making bold, public declarations about things outside their expertise. Genius is not universally transferable. If it was, Gary Kasparov wouldn't be a kook.

I can see the case that Hansen is doing things, in addition to science, that you don't think he should be. I'm not sure I understand how he isn't doing science.

As for being skeptical in the same mould as Dyson, I'm not sure why that would be a really good thing. Dyson is a non-expert whose opinion is taken seriously because of his staggering intellect. If you don't have his genius, but share his lack of expertise, what exactly are you bringing to the table to make these strong judgments? Your gut instinct?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Your gut instinct?

No. My understanding of a logical progression of reasoning, and dispassionate application of scientific method and principles. I think Dr. Dyson's criticism of Dr. Hansen is not his science, but his obvious idealism and politics which calls his objectivity into question.

[Jester]

No. My understanding of a logical progression of reasoning, and dispassionate application of scientific method and principles. I think Dr. Dyson's criticism of Dr. Hansen is not his science, but his obvious idealism and politics which calls his objectivity into question.

Okay. And if Hansen's results were some weird outlier, and he was wandering around hawking a ridiculous theory with paper-thin evidence, I'd say that'd be a perfectly good deduction: his idealism has tainted his reasoning.

Except, what he's saying is not unusual. It's dead in the mainstream of his discipline. It's what pretty much every major scientific organization and journal has supported. It's what the overwhelming majority of scientists, both inside and outside of his field, agree with.

This does not make him automatically right. But it does mean it's not possible to just toss him in with the crazies and cranks. What he is saying is backed up not only by his research, but the research of the whole climate field. Maybe he's too loud about it, and exudes too much certainty to accurately reflect the persistent difficulties in climate modelling. But the gist of what he's saying is scientific consensus. Are you really okay with calling that "politics", but then throwing " attack the argument not the person" in my face when you throw Steven Milloy into the mix?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

He routinely claims not to know much about it...

You clearly haven't read much of his writings. When Dyson says that he doesn't know much about something, it usually means that there's a dozen or so individuals in the world who know more. If he claims to be short, it is only because he uses a very long yardstick. And for one who doesn't know much, his objections are pretty specific and to the point.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Okay. And if Hansen's results were some weird outlier, and he was wandering around hawking a ridiculous theory with paper-thin evidence, I'd say that'd be a perfectly good deduction: his idealism has tainted his reasoning.

Except, what he's saying is not unusual. It's dead in the mainstream of his discipline. It's what pretty much every major scientific organization and journal has supported. It's what the overwhelming majority of scientists, both inside and outside of his field, agree with.

This does not make him automatically right. But it does mean it's not possible to just toss him in with the crazies and cranks. What he is saying is backed up not only by his research, but the research of the whole climate field. Maybe he's too loud about it, and exudes too much certainty to accurately reflect the persistent difficulties in climate modelling. But the gist of what he's saying is scientific consensus. Are you really okay with calling that "politics", but then throwing " attack the argument not the person" in my face when you throw Steven Milloy into the mix?

Actually, what I object to, particularly with Hansen is that in his scientific writings he is quick to point out the uncertainty of the models, and the limitations of his findings. Yet, in his odd 1500 or so public speaking engagements per year, he voices a political certitude not backed up by his own science. GISS has published and had to back track on numerous climate statements, mostly I would surmise due to the bias of scientists such as Dr. Hansen. His political opinions and positions have garnered him some vast sums of money from people who are interested in one side of the GW debate, not that some scientists we've spoken of haven't garnered sums of money from the other side of the debate. But, this is where science stops, and ideology begins. I doubt Dr. Dyson or most scientists would ever rub shoulders with Daryl Hannah in a county lock up. Which makes Dr. Hansen particularly unique, especially since his salary is furnished by the US taxpayers. Then again, I'm from MN where a comedian, a wrestler, or a guy driving a hippie bus to Washington seem like politics as normal.

You can attack Milloy if you like. You will further the argument by disproving what he says. I admire Dr. Hansen for some of his scientific work, particularly on black carbon. But, his politics and activism strain his reputation as an objective scientific opinion.