AGW, Chaos Theory and Schrödinger’s Cat

Paradox Lost  

 

How can we credit backward-looking public schoolteachers (“Climatists”) using computer climate models (GCMs) with theButtered_cat_comic ability to divine the future of the Earth’s climate 30-50 years hence? Thinking as they do what have they ever done in the past that would give us confidence in their honesty, integrity, trustworthiness and intelligence or their abilities to create computer models that accurately predict anything?

What we have seen in the past only inspires distrust—e.g., incompetence in data gathering, deliberate manipulation and data gone missing. Schoolteachers are steadfast in refusals to allow their performances in the dropout factories to be objectively measured. As Climatists who live off tax dollars they also refuse to let anyone else see the computer climate programs we paid for. It seems Climatists have simply fabricated their GCMs out of whole cloth because their GCMs have no predictive ability whatsoever that much is certain—and, are simply hiding the evidence.

For thousands of years humanity has been just winging it when it comes to dealing with whatever nature brings our way. The big change is that the Left wants to untie us from this experience. New are public-funded schoolteachers who come down from their ivory towers to let us know they can foretell the future instead of warning us about charlatans who made similar claims throughout history. These Climatists tell us industrialization has been a disaster, modernity is a bad thing and America is evil and killing us and must be stopped. This is something we have come to expect from neo-eco-conservationist ideologues but everyone has pretty much been taken by surprise at the brazen hubris of these government toadies pretending they have their fingers on nature’s thermostat and then—after a carbon tax is in place to fund the government watchdogs—the world will be hunky-dory.

The problem is the Left’s models are “quatsch” according to scientists like Hans von Storch who understand statistics. We’ve seen examples of this sort of thing before where monkeys throwing darts deliver results superior to the best models science has to offer. For all we know, the Earth may not have a climate: it is even possible that chaos theory provides superior predictive results than schoolteachers’ GCMs.

And what if models based on chaos theory were seen in the end to have captured the essence of nature in a bottle better than any other approach–what then? We wouldn’t know it except by looking back 30-50 years from now; and, all it would prove is that the Earth’s climate wasn’t really that predictable after all because it is too chaotic. In theory, all of the climate theories can be brought together under one unifying theory call it MY theory, of climate change. So, MY theory will finally make sense of—e.g., standard theory, new theory, your/their/its theories, establishment’s theory, M’s and M&M’s and M&W’s theories, AGW theory, scientific theory, this-and-that theory, man-made theory, warming theory, ‘greenhouse’ theory, economic theory, coherent theory, astronomical theory, solar dynamo theory, general theory, stable theory, basic theory.

Before we can arrive at a unifying theory we first must realize that current GCMs are nothing more than modern-day divining rods. Andi Cockroft described the first digital weather model ever. It was a computer model by Edward Lorenz back when vacuum-tube computers were first introduced to science just fifty years ago. Lorenz used, “a set of a dozen or so differential equations involving such things as temperature, pressure, wind velocity etc.” As Concroft tells the story, Lorenz re-ran his program, “by entering a variable to 3 decimal places,” and to Lorenz’ surprise, “the results were completely at odds with what was achieved earlier.” As it turns out, “re-entering the variable to its full 6 decimal places produced a repeat of the initial results – from this Lorenzo drew the inevitable conclusion that with his dozen or so equations, even a miniscule variation on input is capable of creating massive change in output.”

So, what happened? As Concroft asks, “why such a radically different outcome for such a miniscule difference in input?” They learnd that with non-linear equations the final result is so dependent on initial conditions that even slight changes in the beginning results in large changes in the later output—i.e., like a stitching error where after you put a lot of little segments together by the time you get to the end you have nothing close to the ‘circle’ that all of the little segments came from.

The conclusion that Lorenz drew, was that given that such small variations can create such massive variation in output, it was impossible to “model” a weather system. (Andi Cockroft, 10 Billion Butterfly Sneezes — More chaos than you can shake a stick at)

More simple than clever, the unifying MY theory that explains everything frees all entanglements, brings order to the randomness we see in our physical world and makes sense of all those things that inseparable pairs continually fight about. And, it does it all by overcoming the biggest impediment to humanity’s understanding of climate change—the MMM paradox.

Simply put, the MMM (Mann, McIntyre, McKitrick) paradox challenges the prediction of modeling the mechanics of climate change situations of global warming (GW) going up when it is also going down and vice-versa.

The unifying MY theory both describes and explains the paradox, as follows:

It is impossible to know both the average and trend of the average global temperature

The explanation is simple. We can at best know one or the other but we cannot at the same time know both.

So, that is why, for example, global warming (GW) can simultaneously be going both up and down. As the unifying MY theory explains the overall GW trend over the last 10,000 years can be down, as in reality we know that is the case. GW can, however, also be going up as we know it has over the last 100,000 years; and, still overall as we also know to be true GW can be going down for the last 4,000 and 2,000 and 16 years as well as going up prior to the aforesaid epochs.

With that explanation, Schrödinger’s cat is finally out of the box both alive and well.

Adriano Mazzarella explains the paradox as a trade-off between representation and evaluation. Like J.R.R. Tolkein’s story of the Ents in the Lord of the Rings—Ents are as old as the mountains and remember everything. That is why Ents cannot tell a story any quicker than it actually took to observe. The availability of increased computing power allow for models of increasing complexity. So, we can more accurately represent the world than ever before. However, with more and more variables the degrees of freedom cannot be known and without that we cannot evaluate the accuracy of our representation of the world. The notion of statistical significance becomes meaningless. Only the actual outcome will be of any significance and for that we must wait for it. Just as we are not really using statistics if we actually know every outcome so too we are not actually using statistics to know what the temperature will be 50 years hence if we keep feeding in all of the data there is to represent the world as it continually unfolds along the way before us, as follows:

“There has been an explosive increase in the use of General Circulation Models (GCM) to forecast the increase in the Earth’s mean temperature caused by anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. This requires powerful computers that provide the solutions to a complex set of partial differential equations, strongly combined non-linearly, involving large quantities of input data…  [and] the greatly increased speed and decreased cost of computer technology has made it possible to construct models of far greater complexity than most scientists imagined only a few years ago… However, the more complex a model, the harder it is to refute. So we face a paradox: the closer a model comes to a full representation of the complex atmosphere-ocean system, the harder it is to evaluate. There is a trade-off between representation and evaluation.”

(Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth’s Rotation and Climate by Adriano Mazzarella)

…To overcome such a paradox, a new methodological approach is here proposed: the scientist must have the courage to come out from inside the investigated phenomenon and investigate the same phenomenon from the outside. (Ibid.)

It would be pretty funny if humanity really did look to the Western men of ersatz science of climatology like Santer, Mann, Hansen and Al Gore for an understanding of the world around us–government ciphers telling us how to think. That, would be chaos. Fortunately, the rest of the world–all of those living outside the West in places like Brazil, India, China and Russia–are not that stupid.

Global warming is like the ozone hoax — a black hole manufactured by Leftists, into which the productive class were supposed to shovel their hard-earned wages so schoolteachers can save the world from Americans who like to take a hot shower before driving to work.

Advertisements

About Wagathon

Hot World Syndrome—fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat. https://twitter.com/Wagathon
This entry was posted in The Cultural Hegemony of Climate Superstition and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to AGW, Chaos Theory and Schrödinger’s Cat

  1. Pingback: The Future of Global Warming | evilincandescentbulb

Comments are closed.