Prune

I didnt know that you were so knowledgably about chaos theory and its refreshing to meet a kindred sprit. I too played with Mandelbrot sets back in the 80s and even latter. Im afraid I havent been able to keep up with the literature. As I recall, what I said was/is correct about the knowledge that can be obtained. And have nothing against scientists investigating the climate if for no other reason than to find more and more parameters to look at and what is important in the confines of chaos theory.

The original inquire was about global warming and the role CO2 plays in it. Chaos theory notwithstanding, we are talking about and increase of a factor of two, 250ppm to maybe 500ppm in the not too distant future. For those who dont know, an increase of 250ppm is 0.00025 or 0.025 % that is causing all the fuss. What is the role of this in climate models? I say it is unknowable for very fundamental reasons.

For the unanimated, heres a simplistic model of the global temperature, but not too bad:

The Sun irradiates the Earth with about 1360W/m2 on average (the Earth follows an exocentric orbit around the Sun) continuously. The normal projection of this is 1 /4 of the Earths surface area (PiR^2/4PiR^2) for an irradiation of 340/m2. About 30% is reflected back into space (the reason we can see the Earth from space), called the albedo, for a net absorbed radiation of 230W/m2. We can use the Stefan-Boltzmann law, assuming the Earth to be a blackbody radiator, and we come up with a temperature of ~ 255K (-18C). The actual temperature of the Earth measured from space is ~ 288K (15C) and the difference is ascribed to the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse gases in order of importance are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, plus minor contributors. Water vapor is by far the largest component, but it varies widely by a factor of about 60 from cold deserts to warm humid places. Here is a question for the computer people: what is the effect of carbon dioxide on water vapor in the atmosphere? I.e. how does global warming caused by CO2 effect the evaporation of water and what role does this have to play on an increase in the albedo thereby decreasing Earths temperature. This should be an easy question for a PC, supercomputer?

On a final note: chaos theory allows very complex systems to be modeled with very few equations that can be used to gain insight about the system if not the exact details. And on the other hand, a very simple equation can provide very complex system. Heres one to play with.

X(next) = RX(1-X)

0<X<1 and let R vary from 0 to 4. Iterate ~100 times and plot the result. Some very strange things happen!

Ken

Lord give me the strength to change the thing I can, the restraint not to try to change the things I cant, and the wisdom to know the difference.

wrote:*Prune <prune.etna@...>*`Ken, I'm not disagreeing that there is no one simple answer. What I am`

saying is (a) that the IPCC scientists are not naive enough to claim

that there is a simple answer and (b) it doesn't matter that there is no

simple answer because there are well developed probabilistic techniques

for dealing with chaotic systems. There is no basis for your claim that

the climate change models have failed. They just don't work in the way

you think they do.

Thank you for those references but I really don't feel the need to

revisit material that I studied many years ago. I am very familiar with

chaos theory and I have spent decades working with models of natural

systems professionally. Many natural systems have chaotic elements to a

greater or lesser extent, and the art of mathematical modelling has

risen to the challenge. And I went through the phase of playing with

Mandelbrot and Julia sets and and the strange attractors in the '70s and

'80s - it's all a bit old-hat now.

I'm afraid that your remarks show that you are not up to date with the

science and mathematics of unpredictable systems. There are lots of

valid bases for challenging the conclusions of IPCC (they would agree -

they do use a probabilistic approach after all), but your claim that the

scientists don't understand chaotic systems is simply bizarre. Do you

honestly think that the IPCC scientists don't understand the

implications of the "butterfly's wings" metaphor?

Here's a hint. If a huge body of expertise thinks one thing and you

think another, try to find out why they hold that view before leaping

into print to say they are wrong. The same advice to Jerry Pournelle - I

admire and enjoy his works of fiction but don't reckon his views on

climate change are worth a candle.

Prune

Discover Yahoo!

Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out!Just an update on the figures. The water in the air varies from 0.1% to 6% for an average of ~ 3%. The pre industrial carbon dioxide content was 250 ppm = 0.0025% and the current content is less then 400ppm = 0.004%. Looking at Fig 10 on

http://www.concentrator.netfirms.com/technology.htm

the effect of water vapor is two to three times that for carbon dioxide in the regions where they are absorbed. Lets be generous and use a factor of two. The greenhouse warming was 33 Celsius and lets see what the addition of 400-250ppm = 150ppm = .0015% makes on temperature in this simplistic linear model.

33 Celsius x 0.0015%/(2x3%) = 0.00825 Celsius

If I did the calculations right, this is much less than the 0.6 Celsius measured?

__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com- --- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/All-Energy/message/5360

Ken Gotberg <kenrfr@y...> included:

> The greenhouse warming was 33 Celsius

As if you could, even if you wanted to.

> and lets see what the addition of 400-250ppm = 150ppm = .0015%

> ... If I did the calculations right,

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html --

boron: fireproof fuel, real-car range, nuclear cachet - My back of the envelope calculation is as good as these circular arguments!
wrote:*csceadraham <gcowan@...>*`--- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/All-Energy/message/5360`

Ken Gotberg <kenrfr@y...> included:

> The greenhouse warming was 33 Celsius

> and lets see what the addition of 400-250ppm = 150ppm = .0015%

> ... If I did the calculations right,

As if you could, even if you wanted to.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

http://mail.yahoo.com