Coldcall said:
"Yes. Nothing to do with "self-organisation" or the like. Sensitive to initial conditions (and some other conditions such as mixing)."
It has plenty to do with self-organising systems. In fact it was through chaos theory we started understanding how non-living systems self-organise as do living ones, through positive and negative feedbacks. Every major text on chaos and complexity defines self-organisation as a natural property of those types of systems. Please read Davies (Cosmic Blueprint), Gribbins (Simplicity), Gleicks (Chaos), Stewarts (Does God Play Dice?). Are they all wrong?
You are just calling in some vague associations: you hear the word "chaos" and you jump to "self-organization", you hear "feedback" and you think "chaos". But even "self-organizing" systems which have an underlying well-defined dynamics can be calculated, without needing to know this. But moreover, all this has nothing to do with climate or weather. Moreover, the works you cite are full of popular mumbo jumbo.
"So why are you insisting that because weather is known to be chaotic, climate predictions are useless ?"
I never said they were completely useless, and i am in favour of modelling chaotic systems in general. My point is that one must accept the limitations of the physics of the underlying system, which is not the case with Gavin and GCMs. a) They don't accept the climate is a chaotic system b) They make highly exaggerated claims about the certainty of projections.
And how, exactly, do you think one "models a chaotic system" differently from modeling a non-chaotic system ? There's no difference ! You just DISCOVER that a certain system's dynamics you've modeled, has a chaotic behavior.
Look at the Lorenz system: they're just a set of differential equations, that resulted from a symplified physical modelisation. Lorenz didn't realize it was a chaotic system, he discovered it. The modeling work is identical, he didn't say "hey, let's put in some chaotic description". That doesn't mean anything, btw.
The "limitations of the physics" can only be discovered by putting them into a model and looking at the behavior of that model, by running it on a computer... exactly what GCM do.
"What does this actually mean, and what does this have to do with the chaos in weather systems which might, or might not, make climate predictions for the next century or so impossible?"
The self-organising feature has nothing directly to do with climate predictions; i never said it did.
So then why did you bring it up in this context ?
The part about self-organisation was related to your comments previously about the stability of a chaotic system. Those are two different strands of the same conversation.
I'm addressing aspects the original question of this thread, namely, the alleged impossibility of calculating climate change because of chaotic behavior and at the same time the requirement of chaotic behavior in order to be able to cry wolf.
"You will have to need to be a bit more explicit here. Do you think that climate has been stable over time ??"
"Stable" is a relative term, but yes within certain boundaries the climate has remained stable even during quite large fluctuations in temperature and Co2, as the record shows. If you look back just over the last million years you will see a very stable pattern of peaks and troughs.
Oh, well, then be reassured that it will remain stable within those boundaries
I think this has been the misunderstanding in this thread from the beginning. There's nothing totally exceptional going on. Just maybe a faster climate change than usual, and at least partly induced by human activities.
"Climate has not been "stable" over time, if by that you mean hasn't changed. That's pretty sure."
Thats a daft statement :-) Sort of like using the term "climate change" to imply human causality. Stable in a chaotic system does not mean it stays exactly the same all the time. It varies as we have natural variation in climate. To suggest because the climate changes it is not stable is a false statement ( at least in the perspective of chaotic systems like the weather and climate).
Well, stability means that there is a value of the state around which small deviations will give rise to a counter reaction that brings back the system to its original state.
If you use words with another meaning than the one it usually has in the theory of dynamical systems, then you can understand maybe the strange reactions you can get.
If you tell me "climate is stable", it means it didn't change, but moreover, that IF something tried to change it, there will be a mechanism that brings it back to its original value. If you understand now that it is "limited to a certain bounded range of values", that's totally different. Well, we will probably remain within that bounded range of values. No worry.
"Not at all. Don't confuse popular accounts with scientific statements. We are supposed to get worried about changing average weather from what we have now. From having different patterns of precipitation, of average temperature, from different snow and ice cover from what we have now. From *change*. We are supposed to get worried because some things will change. Will not be identical to what we have now."
Thats a ridiculous thing to get worried about because there will be climate change no matter what. Of course the climate will never be identical :-) But you and i both klnow that if you used that rather weak argument for spending trillions on Co2 taxes there would be no COP15 right now.
Nevertheless, that's exactly what it is about. People don't want the climate to change - especially so much in so few time. There's no more to it.
People want to limit the temperature deviation over a century to less than 2 degrees. Now, you know as well as I do that climate has both been hotter and colder than 2 degrees in the history of the earth. But people consider that that's too much of a change to adapt to in a century's time.
"Well, I think that the current "consensus" is that a doubling of CO2 will lead, within something of about a century or so, to a temperature increase grossly between 2.1 and 4.5 degrees WORLD AVERAGE, but which can hide much wilder local changes. In polar regions, this could be 10 degrees more and oceans maybe just 1 or 2 degrees. Note that this is for a CO2 doubling. If we have a 4-fold increase of CO2, grossly these numbers have to be multiplied by 2, so a temperature change between 4.2 and 9 degrees world average."
The problem is averaging out our global temperatures because we live in a localised world. But If those projections are from the GCMs then obviously i am going to take them with a large sack of salt (for all the reasons I've already stated in this thread).
Why ? That's nevertheless the best possible way of doing things: to model it physically.
But hey that's pretty alarming and would consitute a run-away warming, totally anamolous from a historical perspective. In th previous paragraph you stated: "Will not be identical to what we have now". Which sounds a lot less dramatic an occurence than an increase in temperature of 4-9 degrees!
That's absolutely not a run-away climate, and it has been hotter in the (far) past.
"You don't "build in" chaos in a model. You build physical hypotheses in a model, and you can observe it to show chaos or not. It's something you discover after the fact, when you run the model."
No, you first define what is the underlying physics of the system so it can be mapped accurately and according to known laws of nature involving extremely complex non-linear dynamical systems. They have failed to do this first step, and instead play semantics over the physical definition of the climate system.
That's nevertheless exactly what people try to do when they build GCM's.
"No serious scientist considers run-away climate. It is not impossible, but you need extreme conditions (I think ocean temperature must be something like 60 degrees in order for vapor feedback to give you a runaway condition). As I pointed out already, a run-away climate is in fact rather easy to calculate, and has no chaotic behaviour: the oceans boil away, we know exactly the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (the entire ocean), there's no life, there's no ice, there's no precipitation. Pretty simple."
Thats funny becuase a temeprature increase anywhere near 9 degrees would be absolutely catastrophic for certain parts of the world. Sorry i can't square your two statements about what the consensus view is, as i mentioned before; just the climate changing or not staying identical is a far cry from the sort of temperature projections you state are the consensus.
Nevertheless, that's still within those "boundaries of stable historical climate" you were talking about, and - as you say - it does worry people. And NOT because of run-away. And not because of "instability".
Climate change is okay as its been happening since the birth of earth. But 4-9 degree increase is not normal climate change; on a graph -depending on scale - it will look like we hit a wall!
That's because it is going faster now than we used to have it, and because we have had a very long time of rather small temperature variations. So now you are realizing maybe why some people think that some action should be undertaken. But, again, this is still "within normal climate boundaries".
Now, 4 - 9 degrees is the prospect of a 4-fold increase in CO2 levels, which is very high. People usually table on something like a factor of 2, and then the increase should be 2 - 4.5 degrees, but that depends on CO2 exhaust. If we burn all the coal this century, it will be more than twice the pre-industrial level.
Just for what it is worth, there's the wiki entry on global temperature reconstruction. Don't take it as a solid source, I just cite it here because I'm too lazy to look up publications about it. I hope it is not considered "controversial", and there's no detailed point to be made apart from the fact that I think that it is generally accepted that temperature has both been higher and lower than now in the distant past by several degrees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png