question on whether climate is chaotic or not

**Coldcall** · Dec10-09, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by sylas

It is the application which is ... odd. The general texts may be fine, but the inferences you are drawing for specific cases are not in the texts and don't follow from the texts.

If you really think that then you clearly have either not read those books, or you have forgotten the content. I suggest you pick them up and have a good read and they will confirm my posts on the strong connection between chaotic systems, complexity and self-organisation.

**Coldcall** · Dec10-09, 06:02 AM

Guys,

This is my last reference on this issue because the conversation is getting silly mwith people starting to deny some basic physcial laws we are well aware of.

Please read this paper, one of hundreds on self-organisation and chaotic systems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC128561/

"The National Academy of Sciences convened an Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium on “Self-organized complexity in the physical, biological, and social sciences” at the NAS Beckman Center, Irvine, CA, on March 23–24, 2001. The organizers were D.L.T. (Cornell), J.B.R. (Colorado), and Hans Frauenfelder (Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM). The organizers had no difficulty in finding many examples of complexity in subjects ranging from fluid turbulence to social networks. However, an acceptable definition for self-organizing complexity is much more elusive. Symptoms of systems that exhibit self-organizing complexity include fractal statistics and chaotic behavior. Some examples of such systems are completely deterministic (i.e., fluid turbulence), whereas others have a large stochastic component (i.e., exchange rates). The governing equations (if they exist) are generally nonlinear and may also have a stochastic driver. Many of the concepts that have evolved in statistical physics are applicable (i.e., renormalization group theory and self-organized criticality). As a brief introduction, we consider a few of the symptoms that are associated with self-organizing complexity."

**vanesch** · Dec10-09, 06:20 AM

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Guys,

This is my last reference on this issue because the conversation is getting silly mwith people starting to deny some basic physcial laws we are well aware of.

Please read this paper, one of hundreds on self-organisation and chaotic systems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC128561/

"The National Academy of Sciences convened an Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium on “Self-organized complexity in the physical, biological, and social sciences” at the NAS Beckman Center, Irvine, CA, on March 23–24, 2001. The organizers were D.L.T. (Cornell), J.B.R. (Colorado), and Hans Frauenfelder (Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM). The organizers had no difficulty in finding many examples of complexity in subjects ranging from fluid turbulence to social networks. However, an acceptable definition for self-organizing complexity is much more elusive. Symptoms of systems that exhibit self-organizing complexity include fractal statistics and chaotic behavior. Some examples of such systems are completely deterministic (i.e., fluid turbulence), whereas others have a large stochastic component (i.e., exchange rates). The governing equations (if they exist) are generally nonlinear and may also have a stochastic driver. Many of the concepts that have evolved in statistical physics are applicable (i.e., renormalization group theory and self-organized criticality). As a brief introduction, we consider a few of the symptoms that are associated with self-organizing complexity."

Self-organization is a vague concept. Some people call phase transitions "self-organizing". What is said here, is that systems that, according to some criteria are "self-organizing" what ever that may mean, exhibit also often chaotic dynamics.
That doesn't mean that any dynamical system that exhibits chaos will be "self-organizing", and moreover being "self-organizing" doesn't tell you much about the possibility of modelling it and using the dynamical model.

Now, in what way does that have anything to do with the potential of climate models to give us an idea of future climate on the relatively short term (say 100 years) ?

Because how do you think that people set up those so-called "self-organizing" system dynamics, in a different way from the usual way of setting up a dynamics ?

You still haven't addressed that. How are people supposed to handle "climate dynamics" differently if it would turn out to be chaotic (which is not certain at all), and whether it would show aspects of "self-organization" (whatever that might mean in climate dynamics: phase transitions in climate ??). In what way would the usual way of setting up the dynamics be any different, and why would that approach not be valid ?

**Coldcall** · Dec10-09, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by vanesch

Self-organization is a vague concept. Some people call phase transitions "self-organizing". What is said here, is that systems that, according to some criteria are "self-organizing" what ever that may mean, exhibit also often chaotic dynamics.
That doesn't mean that any dynamical system that exhibits chaos will be "self-organizing", and moreover being "self-organizing" doesn't tell you much about the possibility of modelling it and using the dynamical model.

Now, in what way does that have anything to do with the potential of climate models to give us an idea of future climate on the relatively short term (say 100 years) ?

Because how do you think that people set up those so-called "self-organizing" system dynamics, in a different way from the usual way of setting up a dynamics ?

You still haven't addressed that. How are people supposed to handle "climate dynamics" differently if it would turn out to be chaotic (which is not certain at all), and whether it would show aspects of "self-organization" (whatever that might mean in climate dynamics: phase transitions in climate ??). In what way would the usual way of setting up the dynamics be any different, and why would that approach not be valid ?

First of all you claimed that self organisation has nothing to do with chaotic systems. You've been proved wrong on that score. I've shown you a direct correlation as stated by that paper and many others, including all the books on this subject i mentioned previously.

Now you are backtracking by claiming its a vague concept. Its not vague at all and well understood in relation to chaotic systems which maintain that self organisation through feedback. From wiki:

"

Self-organization usually relies on four basic ingredients:

Positive feedback
Negative feedback
Balance of exploitation and exploration
Multiple interactions"

Are you claiming the climate system lacks any of those four properties? If so please provide such evidence.

**sylas** · Dec10-09, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by Coldcall

If you really think that then you clearly have either not read those books, or you have forgotten the content. I suggest you pick them up and have a good read and they will confirm my posts on the strong connection between chaotic systems, complexity and self-organisation.

You continue to miss the point. The connections given in these general references are not what is in dispute, and have not been denied in the thread. The specific conclusions you draw with respect to climate are not in the books either. You need to actually understand the specific climate example a lot better before you can draw strong conclusions based on general texts for chaos theory.

Cheers -- sylas

**Coldcall** · Dec10-09, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by sylas

You continue to miss the point. The connections given in these general references are not what is in dispute, and have not been denied in the thread. The specific conclusions you draw with respect to climate are not in the books either. You need to actually understand the specific climate example a lot better before you can draw strong conclusions based on general texts for chaos theory.

Cheers -- sylas

No what you are basically saying as is Gavin at RC and anyone who has invested emotionally or professionally in the GCMs is more or less: "we cant be sure climate system is chaotic, so we'll ignore the basic physics involved". Hence we are back to square one.

I think I have invested too much time already trying to convince you guys of some basic facts regarding the real-world implications and physics of climate systems.

You still insist they are not chaotic. Fine, i'm happy for you to wrap yourself up in a that false sense of security, but it aint science.

**sylas** · Dec10-09, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Coldcall

You still insist they are not chaotic. Fine, i'm happy for you to wrap yourself up in a that false sense of security, but it aint science.

Actually, I have not; though I have indicated some forms of chaotic behaviour that don't apply to climate. You understand me about as well as you understand Dr Schmidt, climate, science, and how to apply basic reference textbooks.

**vanesch** · Dec10-09, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Coldcall

First of all you claimed that self organisation has nothing to do with chaotic systems. You've been proved wrong on that score.

No, I disputed the fact that a chaotic dynamics by itself has anything to do with self-organisation, as if self-organisation (whatever that may mean !) is an automatic consequence of "chaotic dynamics", especially in the case of climate systems.

Chaotic dynamics is well-defined: there is a clear definition of what it is. Self-organisation is much vaguer. It comes down to "a system that increases its internal complexity", but what's that supposed to mean exactly ?

For instance, consider an example of "self-organisation" in magnetisation which is "spontaneous magnetisation". A typical theoretical system here is the Ising model (wiki link). Well, believe me or not, but multi-dimensional Ising models are explored by running simulations that apply the basic physics, and one "observes" this "self-organisation" by running the simulator, see for instance http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/ijmp_c/Ising.html

This is basic statistical physics. The physical modelling is done "as usual", what is observed is the behavior of the output of the model. Nobody put "self organisation" in the model (by definition you can't put it in the model !).

You make of that concept of "self organisation" what you want. You don't win much by introducing the word: it doesn't change any of the actual work behind the modelling.

Self-organization usually relies on four basic ingredients:

Positive feedback
Negative feedback
Balance of exploitation and exploration
Multiple interactions"[/b]

What does that mean, a system that has a "balance of exploitation and exploration" ?

When does a differential equation have a "balance of exploration and exploitation" ?

Are you claiming the climate system lacks any of those four properties? If so please provide such evidence.

Apart from "balance of exploration and exploitation" of which I don't know much, most electronic amplifiers can be said to satisfy those criteria: there are usually positive and negative feedbacks in it, and as there are multiple components, you can say that there are multiple interactions. Are they self-organizing systems ? Are they chaotic then ? Can't we simulate them by putting together the models of their constituents (for instance in a SPICE simulator) ?

Do you understand why I say that it is a vague concept ?