Re: Actual Climate Change Thread

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

Wow, this reminds me of something form the Dada engine, or the "social
Text" affair.

 

Not sure where to begin in deconstruction, but it seems that the
following statement:

 

"Weather has alpha-stable distribution.  This means varince is infinite,
at least in theory."  

 

Is demonstrably false, since at some value of significant enough
atmospheric excitation there would cease to be an atmosphere due to the
gasses achieving escape velocity, as the most obvious example of some
sort of limitation on the system.

 

My guess is that a more valid model of weather is that it is variable
within bounds set by climate, and climate within bounds set by
insolation, albedo, gas composition (I doubt we're about to get a
methane atmosphere any time soon, FE), etc.

 

IOW, it's actually in dynamic equilibrium locally, but it's gross
equilibrium is static in a relatively small spectrum, absent some major
external force.

 

For something more in-line with the expertise of this group, some
examination of the (awful IMNSHO) actual code used at the CRU is in
order:

 

http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html

 

 

 

From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org]
On Behalf Of Martin Tomasek
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 7:47 AM
To: chris () blask org
Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: Re: [funsec] Actual Climate Change Thread

 

chris () blask org wrote: 

        It is possible if we exclude 'global climate'.
            

 
I don't find any reason to do so.  Your examples indicate changes in
proximity to some area affecting that area, so it is only possible to
assume that you argue nothing but a matter of scale.  Are you claiming
to have personally proven that environmental changes can only have
impact over a given distance - say over a hundred miles but not over a
thousand miles?  What do you base this assumption on?
  


I base this assumption on inherent stability of climate and of
ecosystem. You must put the system on the verge of stability for it to
allow further propagation of local changes. It is related to 'stochastic
resonance'.

For example one ecosystem in north poland is on the verge of stability.
Grassy land, lower precipitations. There was sand mine on one place in
this area, so there is one place without grass. But dryness allow
instability to propagate, so area of sand grows slowly over the time. If
there were more precipitations, area of sand would be the same or nature
would take the sand area back.




The base assumption I read from your statements is that nature has some
"preferred" climate for the surface of the earth.  This would require
more proof - and short of a theistic argument beg more frank credulity -
than any other alternative.  Every evidence is that the surface of the
earth is not the one particular charmed natural artifact in the
universe.  Gases and liquids and solids will interact here in the same
pseudo-random fashion they do anywhere, with whatever result physics
dictates and with no regard to what humans find survivable.
  


Basically, you are asking me to prove if earth's climate is stable (for
unspecified amount of time).

We know that weather is chaotic system. And that means average has no
same meaning as one would expect from data governed by gaussian
distribution. Weather has alpha-stable distribution.  This means varince
is infinite, at least in theory. So, central limit theorem does not hold
=> you can't reduce variance by averaging the data. Stationarity of
series of data is questionable (at least at some moments, such as
starting points of ice ages). Measuring temperature extremes for every
day of the year provide more valuable data. Since we use solar calendar,
the measurements will sync to changes of solar irradiation naturally
(this is good, sun is main driver of weather and climate).

I'll find you some data for the temperature extremes, but I'm waiting
for download to finish.

The extremes in temperatures for each day are very useful in determining
climate type. The type is determined mostly by temperature and
precipitation ranges (you shoukd use plant types for determining it
also). Actual map of earth climates:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/ClimateMap_World.png

We know by historical measurements and records that climate zones shift
slightly over the time. For example climate in France, during medieval
warm period, must have been subtropical. There are historical tax
records on taxation in _oranges_.

We know that there are fast shifts in climate. Ice cores are suggesting
that ice ages happened from year to year. This means the system was on
the verge of stability globally. You need to take _a_lot_ of energy out
of system to do this. Only the sun can do this.

So, the climate behaves like any other chaotic system. Is is stable for
hundreds of years, then small change occurs. It is stable for tens of
thousands of years, then bigger change occurs.




 
  

        But, speaking of 'greenhouse gases', human impact is minimal. I
talked
        on this with geologist and with ecologist. CO2 produced by
        nature (mostly by volcanos) is about two ordes of magnitude
higher
        than quantity produced by human. So, if anyone want to impact
        levels of CO2, he should ban volcanos. :-) And situation on
methane is
        similar.
            

 
So, it is a matter of scale you are arguing, not a matter of capacity?
If mankind upped the output of carbon and became (by your numbers) only
a single order of magnitude less than all natural inputs then it would
possibly make a difference?  Equal to all natural inputs?  Double?  The
global climate might be changed by human effort if we arranged for a
large enough rock to fall to earth?
  


AFAIK temperature is dependent, beyond other factors, on logarithm of
CO2 concentration. The most significant factor in temperature changes is
water. If you calculate difference of energy from sun with radiated
energy, Earth should have average temperature about -2 degrees of
celsius (28 F). Higher temperature is archieved by atmospheric
temperature mirrors, which won't work without water.

So, it would matter if human increase CO2 output say twenty times. It
would cause temperature change you can measure even from satellites
(0.1C).

Humans can change climate globally, but there is just one way available
to human now: to blow up the oceans. If you use nuke in the ocean and
the nuke is big enough, you can dissociate the water the way
dissociation will keep spreading through all the water it has direct
contact to. But I'm quite sure after this event there will be noone to
confirm the climate change.




        There are sporadically happening events that cause change
        of climates globally. But I think this is not standard
situation.
            

 
This is definitely the standard situation.  The climate began with a
heavy rain of rocks and moons, settled into a few billion years of
poisonous (by our standards) gases, is in a brief hiatus of 21% oxygen
and 78% nitrogen and will end as the outer shell of a dying red giant
star.  At any given moment along the way the climate may be called upon
to process the mass and energy of a passing comet, which has measurable
impact on every cubic inch of the global biosphere every time it
happens.
  


You are reinterpreting it on very different timescale.




        So you can measure global area represented by different
        climates, but averaging temperature over the areas (or globally)
is
        quackery. Average global temperature has no meaning. 
            

 
During the Snowball Earth stage the averaged temperature was below 0C
and this did in fact result in no place being above 0C, the Cretaceous
hothouse (again, relative to today) resulted in an average ocean-bottom
temperature about 10C greater than it is today (where the average is
about 4C) and a complete lack of icecaps.  This did in fact affect
climates everywhere on the earth.
  


There is difficulty in measuring temperature of water in chalky period.
Is is measured by isotopes in plankton. But there is wide range of
depths in which plankton can live. So, the scientists don't know the
depth where the measurement is actually taken. And iceball earth
hypothesis is a weird one. AFAIK it only tries to explain some deposits
in tropical areas, which are supposed to be of glacial origin. There is
one difficulty with this hypothesis. Once the Earth has frozen
completely, high albedo of the surface will reflect more energy back to
the space. It is stable state which is very difficult to leave. It
requires so much energy to melt the ice that this state is considered
impossible to leave when reached.

I believe that if icecaps are melted, almost all temperature averages
you can construct will show you bigger average than today. I didn't
study craceous period much. What makes you think icecaps were melted for
real?




        I assume it has some importance in politics, such as 
        environmentalism,  because it is scalar and can be
        presented in scary graphs.
            

 
"Just because two people disagree does not prove that either is
correct."
 
The misuse of data does not prove that the data in question does not
exist.  Whether some people have political motivations to show that
Humans Are Bad And Stupid (that, I believe, you and I agree some do) is
immaterial to the question of whether humans are capable of - and in
fact potentially accomplishing - global environmental change.
Regardless of political leanings it is possible to make some basic
logical conclusions (i.e. if we infinitely double our carbon output it
will at some point matter) and make some irrefutable empirical
measurements (i.e. that particulate matter from Chinese coal-fired power
plants is increasingly thick in Californian air).
  


I agree. (excluding doubling of CO2 levels, which would matter only if
climate system on the whole earth was on the edge of instability :-)




Whether or not the human-induced increase in atmospheric carbon is
sufficient to cause temperature shifts at this or another given point -
and whether this is even a good or bad thing - are more finely-tuned
questions than most of the tabloid-level public debate touches on.  But
it is certainly possible to determine whether the earth has a static
climate that is impervious to any action by man or nature, and it most
certainly is not.
  


Earth climate changes is definitely caused by natural causes. There are
well-known Milankovitch cycles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Human has not yet enough knowledge and energy sources to change climate
globally. Excluding blowing up ocean mentioned above of course.



-- 
Martin Tomasek
 
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." --Benjamin
Franklin

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.