Ken Smith wrote:

In article af1Lf.268$fL3.134@fed1read01,
Mark Fergerson wrote:
[...]

In chaos theory, "probabilities" pretty much translates to "attractors".

Unfortunately, "attractors" only appear when the data is displayed in a
form that allows you to see them. You need to plot two interdependant
variables as X and Y to see them. This makes them hard to demonstrate for
the climate issue.

X and Y plots are for 2 variables; the Wiki page shows _lots_ of
interdependent variables (FTM there are variables it doesn't even
mention). There's no rule against plotting multidimensional attractors;
the "classic" Lorenz strange attractor must be shown in 3D.

Do a Google Images search for strange +attractor and see.

In the case of modelling climate, you _have_ to include all of them
(at least in the interest of preserving intellectual honesty). Yes, it's
hard, but that's no excuse for going all Chicken Little when _one_ of
them shows a trend that some consider distressing, especially when it's
at least equally hard to demonstrate that we have any control over it.

With that in mind, re-examine the curves on the Wiki page I cited and
think about the energies involved in getting those curves from one
excursion to the other. It just doesn't seem reasonable _to me_ that
anything we can do will push their pseudoperiodicity far enough off
their mutual attractors (remember, they interact) to be worth worrying
about.

What units of measure do you put on "reasonable _to me_"? In the past,
"rocks don't fall from the sky" seemed reasonable to a lot of people
because they didn't think there were any rocks in the sky.

Energy content, especially in the case of the solar
irradiance-influenced variables. Then there's atmospheric
reflectance/absorbance; wanna do a BOTE for volcanic eruptions' effects?
How much did Krakatoa affect the data immediately following its
eruption? Why is the climate data from that period considered "baseline"?

We simply cannot wield energies on natural scales.

Mr. Larkin thinks that washing his car will cause an ice age.

I think he's being just the least bit sarcastic.

And you think that the amount of CO2 man has added will have no effect.

"Trivial" effect, no sarcasm intended.

I think it is safe to assume that at least one of you is wrong.

Well, what units of measure do you put on "safe to assume"?

I therefor propose the Mr. Larkin not wash his car and the CO2 production
rate be reduced to the degree we easily can.

The first is a lot easier to accomplish but demonstrating the
usefulness of either (climate-change-wise) is still difficult. Again,
especially when trying to demonstrate that we can affect atmospheric CO2
to the degree a mere volcanic belch can, much less a full blown
eruption. BTW, you _do_ remember the recent eruptions in the Pacific
northwest and Mexico (to mention just two) and are aware that at least
one Alaskan volcano is "restless"?

Look, the engineer in me wants to find the knobs as badly as anyone
else. I just don't think we have enough leverage to do anything worthwhile.

Also, I'm extremely suspicious of proposals involving getting the
"First World" to decrease its CO2 production while ignoring the
emissions from the rest of the world. That's politics, not science.


Mark L. Fergerson