The first quoted sentence of the WWA paper looks like dissembling. According to the BBC, global temperatures breached the UN’s precious 1.5°C limit about a year ago, thanks to the massive spike in global warming due to the 2022 verboten-to-mention Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310.
*“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”*
**IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.**
This is indeed a very strange situation. The unpredictability of chaotic systems (projected over time scales that are larger than a few orbits of the appropriate attractor) is well studied. This (oddly enough) was established with a super simple 3 parameter weather system model that gave rise to the Lorenz attractor and the birth of chaos theory. Yet today, these ideas seems to have fallen off the radar. This unpredictability is not really amenable to simple statistical methods (such as averages or simple projections) to stabilize. You either average over a small part of the underlying attractor (assuming you even have a handle of what that looks like, as we don't even know if our parametrization of the problem is even nearly complete enough) so the small average could just jump you onto another path of the attractor that sends you to a place that is irrelevant to the data you started with. A very large average may just give you the average within the bounds of the attractor. Any extrapolation will have a time window that makes the results meaningless. All this mumbo jumbo assumes the attractor exists and is stable (I would like to believe it is).
I suppose this complexity plays to the hands of the elitists as they can buy researchers to amplify their agenda laced message. The complexity makes it difficult to give simple rebuttals to their pseudo-science. Why are there no larger body of researchers that is critically examining this type of hype, that gives a rebuttal, even if more complex? Never mind, I suppose that they are just marginalized and eliminated as necessary, just as so many who disagreed with Fauci were.
The control of the moneyed interests is really quite surprising.
Anyone who claims that a purported computer game- oops, simulation - of an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we don’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to *inter alia* extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, strange attractors and bifurcation – is capable of making meaningful predictions over any significant time period is either a charlatan or a computer salesman.
Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.
*Lorenz’s early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science–biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.*
*Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions–relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos.*
You can add as much computing power as you like, the result is purely to produce the wrong answer faster. But for some climate “scientists” I suppose it pays the mortgage…
However, where/when ‘bifurcation’ is extant within a ‘weather model’ the accurate ‘forecast’ can’t be ‘accurate’ for more than 2-4 ‘days’.
Take note of what our ‘weather people’ say when ‘multiple weather models’ offer ‘differing outcomes’. This is just ‘weather’ and ‘not’ climate.
‘Mathematically’, ‘two’ interacting systems are ‘predictable’, but when a ‘third interacting system’ (conjoining all three systems) is included ‘predictability’ becomes ‘impossible’ and ‘chaos’ ensues.
Thanks, a clear and insightful description. I would just like to add, the inherent property of unpredictability, in non-linear chaotic systems, has been spun into a gift for those who would control our thoughts, and , in turn, our free will. This free will is not "free" it requires the effort to obtain the knowledge base and courage to act independently upon the best view of reality we each are able to construct.
This is where complexity tends to make independent assessment difficult, and, our elitist friends, always salivating for more control, come in and offer a helping hand. They embrace the complex chaotic systems, which can be used, to forward their nefarious agendas, that seem to invariably driven by their greed for both wealth and power. This is done by buying modellers to generate (in my opinion questionable) complex models with a plethora of parameters (which, again in my opinion, is poorly understood and in some cases may not be even truly independent, nor, as you say, complete). Now the crucial step in this setup, they abandon the ideas about longer term predictability of chaotic systems. They couch the intrinsic unpredictability in terms of statistical uncertainty (which, I also find difficult to accept). They run a bunch of models with differing parameters (probably with the aid of goal seeking algorithms) to achieve their desired talking points. If you look at their system of differential/difference equations, they appear to have some formal tie to the underlying chaotic dynamic system, so, we are duped to think, what comes out is a real significant possible outcome. A possible outcome is far different from a significant or important one. This is a sad situation for anyone who abdicate their free will to these high priests (sold to the elitists) of scientism. Because the underlying chaos becomes a tool to generate what they desire to say and bind the minds and wills of everyone who have accepted their stewardship.
I am just astounded to see so little push back on their modelling circus, from what I have, for most of my life, believe to be a robust scientific body of researchers. I guess the problem is that money has bought too many of these "researchers", who are no longer independent nor have interest in trying to describe the real world (at least if it threatens their elitists kick backs).
I did not understand your last point about interacting systems. If you have a source that, I can learn from, about this point, please let me know. Thanks.
"putting the global mean temperature close to about 1.3°C above pre-industrial temperature"
Since the end of the LIA, in other words
The first quoted sentence of the WWA paper looks like dissembling. According to the BBC, global temperatures breached the UN’s precious 1.5°C limit about a year ago, thanks to the massive spike in global warming due to the 2022 verboten-to-mention Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68110310.
Professional liars and cheats.
*“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”*
**IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.**
This is indeed a very strange situation. The unpredictability of chaotic systems (projected over time scales that are larger than a few orbits of the appropriate attractor) is well studied. This (oddly enough) was established with a super simple 3 parameter weather system model that gave rise to the Lorenz attractor and the birth of chaos theory. Yet today, these ideas seems to have fallen off the radar. This unpredictability is not really amenable to simple statistical methods (such as averages or simple projections) to stabilize. You either average over a small part of the underlying attractor (assuming you even have a handle of what that looks like, as we don't even know if our parametrization of the problem is even nearly complete enough) so the small average could just jump you onto another path of the attractor that sends you to a place that is irrelevant to the data you started with. A very large average may just give you the average within the bounds of the attractor. Any extrapolation will have a time window that makes the results meaningless. All this mumbo jumbo assumes the attractor exists and is stable (I would like to believe it is).
I suppose this complexity plays to the hands of the elitists as they can buy researchers to amplify their agenda laced message. The complexity makes it difficult to give simple rebuttals to their pseudo-science. Why are there no larger body of researchers that is critically examining this type of hype, that gives a rebuttal, even if more complex? Never mind, I suppose that they are just marginalized and eliminated as necessary, just as so many who disagreed with Fauci were.
The control of the moneyed interests is really quite surprising.
I love chaos!
Anyone who claims that a purported computer game- oops, simulation - of an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we don’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to *inter alia* extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, strange attractors and bifurcation – is capable of making meaningful predictions over any significant time period is either a charlatan or a computer salesman.
Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.
*Lorenz’s early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science–biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.*
*Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions–relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos.*
http://news.mit.edu/2008/obit-lorenz-0416](http://news.mit.edu/2008/obit-lorenz-0416
You can add as much computing power as you like, the result is purely to produce the wrong answer faster. But for some climate “scientists” I suppose it pays the mortgage…
However, where/when ‘bifurcation’ is extant within a ‘weather model’ the accurate ‘forecast’ can’t be ‘accurate’ for more than 2-4 ‘days’.
Take note of what our ‘weather people’ say when ‘multiple weather models’ offer ‘differing outcomes’. This is just ‘weather’ and ‘not’ climate.
‘Mathematically’, ‘two’ interacting systems are ‘predictable’, but when a ‘third interacting system’ (conjoining all three systems) is included ‘predictability’ becomes ‘impossible’ and ‘chaos’ ensues.
Thanks, a clear and insightful description. I would just like to add, the inherent property of unpredictability, in non-linear chaotic systems, has been spun into a gift for those who would control our thoughts, and , in turn, our free will. This free will is not "free" it requires the effort to obtain the knowledge base and courage to act independently upon the best view of reality we each are able to construct.
This is where complexity tends to make independent assessment difficult, and, our elitist friends, always salivating for more control, come in and offer a helping hand. They embrace the complex chaotic systems, which can be used, to forward their nefarious agendas, that seem to invariably driven by their greed for both wealth and power. This is done by buying modellers to generate (in my opinion questionable) complex models with a plethora of parameters (which, again in my opinion, is poorly understood and in some cases may not be even truly independent, nor, as you say, complete). Now the crucial step in this setup, they abandon the ideas about longer term predictability of chaotic systems. They couch the intrinsic unpredictability in terms of statistical uncertainty (which, I also find difficult to accept). They run a bunch of models with differing parameters (probably with the aid of goal seeking algorithms) to achieve their desired talking points. If you look at their system of differential/difference equations, they appear to have some formal tie to the underlying chaotic dynamic system, so, we are duped to think, what comes out is a real significant possible outcome. A possible outcome is far different from a significant or important one. This is a sad situation for anyone who abdicate their free will to these high priests (sold to the elitists) of scientism. Because the underlying chaos becomes a tool to generate what they desire to say and bind the minds and wills of everyone who have accepted their stewardship.
I am just astounded to see so little push back on their modelling circus, from what I have, for most of my life, believe to be a robust scientific body of researchers. I guess the problem is that money has bought too many of these "researchers", who are no longer independent nor have interest in trying to describe the real world (at least if it threatens their elitists kick backs).
I did not understand your last point about interacting systems. If you have a source that, I can learn from, about this point, please let me know. Thanks.
All the above is because this is nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ideology, aka "settled science"