WHT, I wrote what you do not still understand
Comment on Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system by Juan Ramón González (@juanrga)
↧
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by Tomas Milanovic
Judith
Fully agree with the the diagnostic of inadequacy of reductionism when we face highly non linear, possibly non ergodic out of equilibrium systems.
I partly disagree with the statement of Barabasi that establishes a (fundamental ?) difference between non linear dynamics what many call now “chaos theory” and “network theory”.
Even if I already partly did it on some previous threads, I would like to illustrate the reductionism inadequacy for those of readers who are not necessarily familiar with the technical, mathematical apparatus of chaos.
- The Feigenbaum constant.
It has been proven that the transition to chaos by period doubling is governed by the Feigenbaum constant.
This constant is independent of the precise (reduced) mechanism of the process being considered – actually one can mathematically prove that it only depends on the presence of a quadratic extremum which may appear in many very different processes.
This is an example of “order” in “chaos” which couldn’t be found by any reductionist method.
So there is an infinity of very different and chaotic non linear systems but they will all transit to chaos with the same Feigenbaum constant if they do so by period doubling.
- The topology of attractors
The attractors are invariant subsets of the phase space (space of dynamical states) where the chaotic systems live. Their dimension is vastly inferior to the dimension of the phase space itself. Their topology e.g dimension, form and boundaries (fractal or not) depends on the coupling between the dynamical variables.
A reductionist approach typically neglects couplings (or considers that the system is linear) and is therefore fully unable to describe or even discover the attractors and their topology. In practice it means that a reductionist approach of a chaotic system would let the system live in states which are in reality forbidden because they are not on the attractor.
- Coupled map lattices
This paper finds a major and beautiful result for a specific case of spatio temporal chaos (http://amath.colorado.edu/faculty/juanga/Papers/PhysicaD.pdf).
Technically it could be called indiferently “network theory” or “chaos theory” what shows that the Barabasi’s distinction is largely artificial.
The paper considers a lattice of coupled oscillators and shows that the transition to coherent behaviour depends on the product of a parameter depending only on the uncoupled dynamics of each oscillator (this is what the reductionist approach would exclusively consider) AND a parameter depending on the network structure.
This kind of systems cannot be studied by neglecting the whole or considering that all of the “whole” is contained in the properties of its elements.
In other words the reductionism utterly fails on this system and can’t explain an apparition of synchronisation.
This paper needs a good level of mathematical training and I would like to point out for the too fast readers that the authors show that the ergodicity hypothesis results in an incoherent state of the system.
The same type of problem is studied in http://matisse.ucsd.edu/~hwa/pub/ks2d.pdf.
This rather technical paper deals with spatio-temporal chaos via interaction between small scales and large scales. It is precisely because of this interaction that turbulence is still not understood and it is arguably one of the top most difficult unsolved problems in physics.
It is this scale interaction/coupling which clearly shows that reductionism doesn’t work on this kind of complex chaotic systems.
Also, among others, Chief Hydrologist is right when he keeps repeating that this kind of complexity exhibits qualitatively very different behaviours for some critical values of couplings.
Some could compare that to phase changes what is a rather fitting analogy. Somebody on the thread mentionned “damping” stating that “damping” was some magics which prevents chaotic systems to be chaotic.
This is obviously very uninformed because “damping” (or energy dissipation) is precisely a necessary condition to have chaos.
So “damping” has nothing to do with the problem of predictability.
On a more anecdotical scale Webhub wrote :
I can actually believe that all that “chaos” map to random functions which leads to a straightforward transfer function.
There is a math research area called Random Matrix Theory, whereby large matrices with arbitrary elements reduce to eigenvalue solutions that have a distribution corresponding to semi-circle PDF. The issue is explaining why the solutions are predictable independent of the input. Terence Tau is currently working on this subject
First it is Terry Tao. Btw he wrote a marvelous paper about why Navier Stokes is so difficult. A must read.
Second believing that “chaos” equals “randomness” shows a, mostly subconscious, postulate of ergodicity. One cannot stress enough that ergodicity is not a given!
And if a system is not ergodic (there are enough examples which show that many are not) then there is no invariant pdf in the phase space.
It is not because we are used to popular examples of chaotic systems which are ergodic (f.ex Lorenz chaos, rigid spheres e.g statistical thermodynamics etc) that ALL chaotic systems are necessarily ergodic.
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by Joe's World
Tomas,
Mathematical training…like averaging?
Turning a planet into a cylinder and ignoring any and all outside factors?
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by markus
To make it very clear.
There is a positive flux of heat at the TOA.
There is a negative flux of heat at the tropopause.
Got it?
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by Joe's World
Is this part of the ‘forever and ever’ models where motion is not an option?
↧
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by Juan Ramón González (@juanrga)
Yes, there is “much confusion about chaos theory.” I can see many people here saying that chaos is deterministic. Never heard about non-deterministic chaos folks? A well-known Nobel winner has a best-seller book about it…
In non-deterministic chaos, systems are unpredictable even if you know the initial state with infinite precision.
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by John Costigane
Chief,
Thanks for the BBC link dealing with solar UV and its suggested effect on jetstream position over the UK in winter, offering the possibility of alarmist free forecasting: superb.
↧
Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by markus
Look beyond the oceans, for there you will see, your brother, for they are yee.
Markus Fitzhenry.
↧
Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by Brian H
You’re joking! Hansen insisted (!?) on using “ineffable”? The man is mis-educated or a serious loon. “Insisted” suggests both of the above.
↧
↧
Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by markus
(Re•duc•tion•ism
noun
1. The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental, social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation
Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents
[Wiki] )
That is the wiki on reducto, some simplifications do lead to greater understanding, imagine trying to teach kids the Science of Atmospheric without relating it to their understandings.
I have previously posted a little ditty, hopefully something like that can be taught to kids, so they understand more. And frankly, some of those lyrics that have been deposited by me, have also helped some of the greatest minds in the field to understand, the wrongness of the greenhouse paradigm.
The art. Roger Tattersall posted on Baron Fourier, and Hans Jelbring’s comments, nailed it for me. When I thought about the N&K principle, it clicked immediately. He did not distinguish the manner of mass, between its different composition, in the crust of the Earth. Looking on Fouriers observations, it was obvious Co2 meant very little to heat distribution in a straight line within the Earth.
Casting off greenhouse, I quickly saw the relationship of refrigeration when Rog posted that graph about the temperature throughout the atmosphere as stratified, I then imagined the greenhouse, as the glass only, and hence a new perspective.
But what mechanism drove our system. Clearly not a greenhouse, as its hotter at TOA. Then it struck, refrigeration heat pumps thermostats, condensers and evaporators, when logically applied to the natural systems of atmosphere, it gelled, like a bolt from Heaven.
To to be sure, I’m not sure it wasn’t.
Roger Tattersall, was the reason for my understandings, enough for a conception of an Idea. And Willis Eschenbachs perpetual motion machine made me think real hard, I don’t think people realise the advances that were made by many, because of his exercise. He is admirable.
Markus Fitzhenry.
↧
Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by dennis adams
I am sure there is a point in there somewhere but I am having a hard time understanding you. Unfortunately, I am not multi-lingual: I only speak English
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by Capt. Dallas
Now MattStat, Chief and Web both have things to offer. Just think of it as a dysfunctional family business or a Taiwanese government session 
↧
Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by mikef317
I’m an infrequent reader of this blog, but I’ve found it open minded about climate change.
Not my topic. I’m more interested in addressing those who have posted regarding the certainty that smoking causes lung cancer: (To deny this is, of course, is to state that the earth is flat.)
To those of you who are so utterly convinced:
Have you ever read even one of the Surgeon General’s reports? (There are 30, some over 1,000 pages long.) Ask your doctor, has he/she ever read even one of these? I suspect not. (But I might be wrong.)
Have you read any of the American Cancer Society, British Doctors, etc. underlying studies that allegedly “proved” that smoking causes lung cancer? I suspect not. (But I might be wrong.)
Have you read critiques of these studies? Some funded (horrors!) by The Merchants of Death, but many not, and all in contrast to “pure” scientists funded by the government (public health) and “charities” like the American Cancer Society. Again, I suspect not. (But I might be wrong.)
Smoking is said to cause over a dozen types of cancer, and emphysema and bronchitis, plus heart disease and stroke, and those are just some of the fatal diseases. Smoking is also said to cause blindness (macular degeneration), hearing loss, erectile dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, psoriasis, wrinkled skin, snoring, and – my own favorite – “apple-shaped weight gain.” (There are easily 100 diseases linked to smoking – cigarette smoking. One of the embarrassments of the “smoking causes” theory is that the statistical association between tobacco and disease generally doesn’t apply to cigars and pipes.)
The case against smoking is almost entirely statistical. Despite decades of trying, other than mouse painting experiments (“…the wrong material, in the wrong form, in the wrong concentration to the wrong tissue of the wrong animal…” R.C. Hockett, 1968), attempts to create disease in animals by exposure to smoke have been a bust. From the start (1950, the first studies on lung cancer) the theory assumed that chemicals in tobacco caused disease; sixty years (and 100 “smoking related” diseases) later, no one has identified any chemical that causes even one of the smoking related diseases. (Reliably, as in viruses cause influenza – and by the way, influenza is a smoking related disease.)
Since this blog is primarily a debate climate change, I won’t try to morph it into a debate about tobacco. I will, however, link to some documents. (And I hope the links don’t blow this comment out of the water.)
SG reports can be downloaded at the Center for Disease Control http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/index.html.)
For a statistical critique of the reports, read Burch: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hms61f00 He’s talking about the 1982 report which uses the same “rational” as 1964. (As is typical, Brownlee’s 1965 paper (cited by Burch) is still – 17 years later – ignored by the SG.)
For the other side, Lilienfeld on Burch: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lyh05c00
Burch’s response: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gms61f00
If you find Burch persuasive, try Brownlee: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zgb2aa00 T. Sterling (oft paid by the tobacco industry) is also worth a read http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jgo56b00 And, what the hell, back in the beginning, R. Fisher http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zrd91f00
I don’t know that I’ll post here again and debate with people. (I might, but it would be a real long dispute.) I will suggest, however, that you read the SG arguments, and the critics, and decide for yourself who had the better arguments. The case against smoking might not be quite as definitive as most people believe.
↧
↧
Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by Brian H
dennis;
I take it that cwon is questioning the nature and source of that “circumspection”.
If it is for the purpose of leaving bridges unburnt, it’s a strategic choice. It does leave her with more than a foot in the door to observe and comment and influence discussion and events. One might doubt the efficacy of that approach, but it’s maybe workable. She does get lots of invites and chances to speak no other prominent un-Believer does.
If it is purely fear of professional ostracism, it’s less praiseworthy or valuable. You seem to be implying this possibility.
If it’s an attempt to right the ship of “climate science” from within by calling it to do better science, it’s probably whistling in the winds of a financial hurricane.
The least attractive ‘scenario’, which some have asserted, is that it’s a false flag operation attempting to keep the sceptics and political resisters of the planned Green Autocracy mollified and distracted while the wheels grind on. Not unthinkable, notwithstanding her explicit references to advocacy and corruption in the posting and submission.
So “calling out the weasels and accepting the blow-back” is perhaps her last resort, or not a position she agrees with. But it may come to that kind of battlefield choice at some point. AGW is, as you note, a “very special kind of advocacy.”
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by Chief Hydrologist
Numbnut made some twee remark on models. I quoted something else on models – something quite obvious to anyone familiar with the partial differential equations used in fluid dynamics – in relation to climate models and complexity – and from a major figure in the field. So entirely on topic, linked to, peer reviewed, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and quoted in context.
The comment from numbnut was that I should stop pretending to cite anything relevant. The title of the paper reads – ‘Irreducible imprecision in atmospheric and oceanic simulations’ and is from someone with impressive credentials in the field – which numbnut might have realised with a quick google – but which I subsequently copied him in on.
‘AOS models are members of the broader class of deterministic chaotic dynamical systems, which provides several expectations about their properties (Fig. 1).’ Professor James McWilliams. This has implications in terms of ‘irreducible imprecision’ in the result of models.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’
I suppose numbnut and Bob Drone fail to understand that either. Numbnut is a serial pest with nothing to offer but ill informed snarks in support of a tribal consensus. He says he is smart – but frankly I think he is the cyber village idiot. Now it is a random paper with no relevance to climate models.
And Bob drones in with puerile homilies about insults, it not being about the science and not valuing me. These characters have scant regard for any science that doesn’t suit the terms of their psychological disorder. You need to remember tha it is not about open mindedness in the least. I could care less what they think of me – I suppose.
↧
Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by Brian H
Correction: as cwon14 notes. This “broken nesting” reply system is confusin’.
↧
Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by JCH
Pekka - your <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/24/missing-heat-isnt-missing-after-all/#comment-162237" rel="nofollow">comment</a> puzzles me.
How does one square what you are saying with articles like Science of Doom's <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/02/why-global-mean-surface-temperature-should-be-relegated/" rel="nofollow">Why Global Mean Surface Temperature Should be Relegated, Or Mostly Ignored</a> and <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/06/the-real-measure-of-global-warming/" rel="nofollow">The Real Measure of Global Warming</a>?
And then there is Roger Pielke Sr., whose obsession usin' ocean jewels is well known. Theses exchanges with Gavin lay out much of his argument: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/comment-page-2/#comment-216420" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/comment-page-2/#comment-216422" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/comment-page-2/#comment-216435" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/comment-page-3/#comment-216570" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
↧
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by Capt. Dallas
Joshua, “It turns out raw “cured salt pork” (read: basically bacon) is as effective a nasal tampon as we have.”
The Power of Bacon! I have a concoction, cornmeal, bacon and cheddar cheese, that promotes domestic tranquility. There is something Zen about bacon cheddar corn muffins.
Unfortunately, bacon increases your risk of cancer by 33% +/-10% with constant exposure.
↧
Comment on Questions on research integrity and scientific responsibility: Part II by Brian H
Disingenuous and puerile, dennis. The point is that being reasonable and counting on the AGW camp to act on appeals to principle is pandering and dangerous.
↧
Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by Chief Hydrologist
Yeah – I will miss the depth of knowledge and sparkling intellect.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
