Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

Hi Everybody -

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is a fundamental description of the Earth system and can be captured in a simple 1st order difference calculation.

dS/dt = Ein/s – Eout/s – where dS/dt is the change in energy storage in the system and Ein/s and Eout/s are the average energies into and out of the system over a period.

Within the simple global overview are of course myriad – and powerful – processes through which energy cascades in the deterministically chaotic system that is the fundamental mode of operation of Earth’s climate.

ENSO is a sub-system that is itself deterministically chaotic. The intensity and frequency of ENSO events varies at least over at least 11 millennia that we know of – http://s1114.photobucket.com/albums/k538/Chief_Hydrologist/?action=view&current=ENSO11000.gif

We are used to thinking of the oceans as layer of warm water over cold water separated by the thermocline – the depth at which the rate of decrease of temperature with increase of depth is the largest. In terms of energy dynamics – this seems relatively arbitrary. The oceans heat as a whole and cool as a whole – but within this there are hydrodynamical and atmospheric processes that influence both local and average rates of warming or cooling. ENSO is a key process involving upwelling in the eastern Pacific in a La Niña and – when the trade winds falter – the flow eastward of a pool of warm water that had been piled up against Australia and Indonesia.

The cold surface of the central Pacific in a La Niña loses less heat than the warm surface in an El Niño – remembering the net direction of energy flux. There are in addition cloud feedbacks in ENSO that again change the planetary energy dynamic.

There are 2 lessons in this. First – that energy flux is complex and dynamic and that a maximum entropy principle tells us little about specific dissipation pathways. The specific and complex pathways cannot be neglected in simplifying assumptions without catastrophic loss of verisimilitude

Secondly – that a La Niña cools the planet and an El Niño warms the planet – suggesting both a contribution to warming between 1977 and 1998 and a cooling influence for 20 to 40 years from 1998. Unless we can get this from an equation of maximum entropy – we are as far from the truth as ever.

Cheers
Robert I Ellison


Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by curious

$
0
0

Recently came across Brazdil et al in Climate Change 05 “Historical Climatology in Europe – the state of the art”. Worth a look IMO.

Comment on Week in review 1/13/12 by Anteros

$
0
0

mike -
I did wonder about possible filial relations (or other) with our resident ‘idiot’, but I think the psycho-pathology is subtly different. Robert is a particularly misanthropic doomer; the infant keeps his madness mostly facing inwards..

P.S. I like your menagerie of doom-types :)

Comment on False(?) Positives by David Young

$
0
0

Fred, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. You have, it seems to me, more confidence in the process of scholarship and science than I do. My final point would be that those who err on the side of skepticism are more likely to make big contributions, especially if they are persistent. Those who pay a lot of attention to their peers will make contributions too, but of a more evolutionary kind. So, in a way, I would be disappointed if I totally convinced you and vice versa. Both types are needed.

Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

As of right now, my concrete testable prediction is extremely right with data well inside the range of the past ten thousand years.

So your theory is nothing more than an assertion that the future will remain the same as the past.
And for that, you name the theory after yourself?
To quote a phrase from another movie : “Alert the media!”

Comment on Week in review 1/13/12 by David Young

$
0
0

I know some EFS types. Cynical but self congratulatory, and not aware that most of what they say is strongly discounted by their peers. They can ocassionally make contributions and even publish papers but are ignorant outside their narrow and usually not very rigorous specialty. For this type of person, retirement can be pretty stressful, because the usual bogeymen whose debunking keeps them sane at work are not readily available, so they move to the web to find them. In this case, its the people on this blog. It is a contradiction in terms, though, if he thinks many of us are liars, why come here at all? A place like Real Climate might be a better place for his no doubt manifold talents.

Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by randomengineer

$
0
0

What, they didn’t have enough computing power in 2006 to manipulate the data?

WTF?

This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts, altering data years after the fact.

Comment on Week in review 1/13/12 by Girma


Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by Anteros

$
0
0

Me too.
But you have to remember they’re desperate. Without some new manipulations Hadcrut3 will show 15 years of cooling next month and that is surely unacceptable

Comment on Week in review 1/13/12 by JCH

$
0
0

EFS_Junior – ignore the nonsense.

My Uncle was a junior physicist on George Rankine Irwin’s team at Naval Research Laboratory during WW2. Irwin did a lot to advance the ball on fracture mechanics.

Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by hunter

$
0
0

pokerguy,
The trolls are impervious to reflecting on the failures of AGW predictions. They will simply find ways to blame the skeptics.

Comment on Week in review 1/13/12 by Michael

$
0
0

I suspect it is spontaneous, not that some don’t make a deliberate effort to inflame passions.

Sadly, I think it originates in a climate where scientists are accused of deliberate manipulation, fraud, and acting out of pure self-interest (ie financial), etc. This kind of rhetoric sets the scene for these attacks from a small subset of people take these accusations very literally and respond in kind.

People who frame the scienitfic disagreements in terms of purposeful malfeasance on the part of some scientists, should have a good hard think about what contribution they may be making to this problem.

Comment on Geoengineering for decision makers by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

Be sure to let us know if you ever come with something resembling an argument, won’t you ?

You are the one asking the rhetorical questions, which by definition is one that doesn’t expect a response.

The smokescreen point is well known among people that debate the global energy issues. Shifting away from fossil fuels serves the purpose of two parties. Number one, the policy makers that pay attention to the science of AGW. Number two, those that understand that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and from which we have to develop alternative sources of energy. Some pundits propose that AGW acts as a smokescreen to divert attention from fossil fuel depletion, which they believe is a more dire (read: scary) consequence, as it will prevent our continued economic growth.

That is the argument, and the one that I thought you were referring to. Next time try not to ask a rhetorical question, as I figured you understood the smokescreen argument. Apparently not.

Comment on Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system by Juan Ramón González (@juanrga)

$
0
0

Christopher Game: This is what Lavenda says on page 65:

Consequentely, Prigogine formulation of the principle of minimum entropy production is valid only for small displacements from equilibrium

Lavenda is not saying that the theorem is not valid, but that only applies to linear nonequilibrium regimes. As I said, and you quote, “Any presentation of the Prigogine theorem that I know emphasizes that its validity is restricted to linear nonequilibrium thermodynamics where the Onsager relations hold.”

Precisely, the section “17.2 The theorem of minimum entropy production” in Kondepudi and Prigogine book is found in the chapter “17 Nonequilibrium stationary states and their stability: linear regime”.

What is the problem?

Comment on Week in review 1/13/12 by Joshua

$
0
0

Michael -

I suspect it is spontaneous, not that some don’t make a deliberate effort to inflame passions.

I agree. It doesn’t seem to me to be particularly likely to be coordinated.

But I would add to your comment that seen within the larger context of partisan battling, there’s nothing unusual here. It’s more than just conspiracy-mongering about climate scientists – it’s reflective of the kind of tribalism that is endemic to virtually any controversy, because some people are willing to jettison principles of critical thinking to protect their cultural, social, or political allegiances.


Comment on Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system by Juan Ramón González (@juanrga)

$
0
0

WebHubTelescope: You again cite another book which is not about thermodynamics or statistical mechanics. And the author only cites image recovery as application of maximum [information] entropy. I already referred to information theory before.

You have extensible quoted this author in this thread about thermodynamics. In the same page that you quoted the author says: I do not know any thermodynamics.

In a first reading of the rest of that chapter, it seems that the author confounds different entropies: Boltzmann, Gibbs, Shannon, physical, informational… Maybe this explains why he does not understand why Shannon entropy is ignored for most applications on statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.

But at least he confirms what I have said in this thread: Jaynes ideas, MAXENT, MEP and similar ideas plays virtually no role in science (physics, chemistry, biology, geology…) and associated engineerings.

Sorry, I do not find any “deeper mathematical meaning of entropy” in the Azimuth blog.

Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by WebHubTelescope

$
0
0

That sounds wrongheaded. If the two measurements don’t agree, which is rare for a skilled carpenter, he will measure again to break the tie. In the case of reliable automated systems, a triple modular redundancy configuration is common, as that has a built-in tie-breaker (assuming common mode errors don’t exist). You don’t need the tie-breaker when the first two measurements match and you have a human in the loop.

Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by Peter317

Comment on Week in review 1/13/12 by WebHubTelescope

Comment on Historical perspective on the Russian heat wave by Herman Alexander Pope

$
0
0

Yes, the future will stay in the same range as the past Ten Thousand Years. History is, by far, the best Model for the Future.

Viewing all 148479 articles
Browse latest View live


Latest Images