Return of the Son of Doomsday Glacier’s Fingernails
October 12, 2022
By Paul Homewood
This week’s dose of sanity from Dr John Robson!
16 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
gezza1298 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on ‘Green’ renewable… Micky R on Shameful Behaviour by Prof Pau… In The Real World on German Hydrogen Rollout Fails… Nicholas Lewis on What’s the real distance… pardonmeforbreathing on Shameful Behaviour by Prof Pau… Ray Sanders on How Wet Was The Spring?
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Did anyone get the video to run?
Yes. No problem.
It works for me too,but what is NEXUS (THAT WAS ON THE SCREEN).Whoops.I tried a google but apart from a request for a password,Iam no wiser.Puzzled I am.
The Climate Discussion Nexus is a group of concerned Canadians who believe more information about climate science and policy debates will lead to better decisions. Dr Robson has been putting out good videos for years.
Search ‘climate discussion nexus’
Excellent. Pleasing dry humour.
I snagged the abstract shown in the video: Time series modeling of paleoclimate data by Davidson and others. As the presenter notes, understanding what it says is for well versed scientists only.
The idea Robson takes from this is that warming releases CO2 and not that CO2 causes warming. This is not a new finding, but it may be better done than earlier studies.
I’ll not read the original, other than the abstract.
Yes, it runs just fine and is very informative. His comments about, ‘inside the computer.’ are very apposite. As I have written, the ‘steady state’ mathematics, derived from the work of Roger Coates and expanded by Euler, Lagrange and Laplace, is totally dependent on the assumption of a state of equilibrium, around which there is perturbation. The concept of equilibrium does not occur in Newton’s ‘Principia’ not because he did not understand it, but because he knew its limitations and that it could not be trusted.
What was developed at the end of the 18th century was mathematical ‘software’, a closed algorithmic system which could not encompass the full dynamical range of of a non-linear dynamical system. If a physical system is modeled using linear algebra and with a full non-linear synthesis, the system behaviours must diverge with time between the models. In a non-linear system, the assumption of superposition and the simple addition of assumed independent variables, just doesn’t work.
So, the description of linear algebra as ‘dynamics’ is false, it reduces every problem to an equivalent problem in statics and then sums the results over time. Time to open the ‘Principia’ lads and learn some real dynamics!
Linear algebra can make use of linear piecewise approximation to give quite useful results in some situations: optimisation of refinery processes for example, where some of the variables are distinctly non linear. Most models go way beyond things that can be solved for analytically: the integral of x^2 is exactly x^3/3, and Simpson’s rule approximations to the integral also turn out to be exact.
When I looked at the entrails of the Limits to Growth model almost 50 years ago, it did not take long to establish that it was based on simultaneous differential equations solved in the DYNAMO language by the 4th order Runge-Kutta approximation. That was liable to blow up in certain circumstances, producing results that were not reliable – leaving aside the massive problems with input data quality and the inadequacy of the model to reflect reality rather than the intent of its authors. Climate models suffer all these defects, alongside the now well known results of chaos theory that tell us that such complex systems are simply not susceptible to modelling. Indeed, we know that something as apparently simple as the three body problem is not soluble analytically or by computer approximation on anything other than short timescales.
Yes, that is right on the money, all this was pointed out by Poincare. Simple analytical functions in a closed form are merely ‘software’ – useful but, not in themselves a complete answer. As a young RAF appentice in the early 1960s, as an earnest young graduate on national service introduced us to the sine wave as a ‘fundamental function’ I stuck my hand up protesting, ‘You have this function that goes from point A to point B, never changing – tell us, what keeps it like that? To me, it lacked physical rigour. There followed an unpleasant interview with the head of teaching who said, that I had to accept such things, as they were established ‘facts’. The Gods, seeing such arrogance in one so young, condemned me, like Sisyphus, to a career trying to make better and better oscillators. Established linear oscillator theory failed, but non-linear theory fitted the facts.
I wish I had learnt half of this stuff when I was young enough to grasp it all!
What I take from your second paragraph is that when the IPCC described the climate system as non-linear and chaotic that ought to have been ‘game over’ as far as AGW is concerned. Or equally AGC(ooling)! Or AGAnything else.
So why the hell ……?
Mike, the term ‘chaos’ is a misnomer, a ‘chaotic’ system is one exhibiting the full range of dynamic behaviour, so its is true ‘dynamics’, not approximate ‘statics’ or assumed ‘steady state’. I have called ‘steady state’, ‘the tyranny of the equals sign’ – how equal and for how long…… John Robson is right on the money in not trusting ‘simulation’ in a time series. The idea that all mathematics can be reduced to a simple concatination of logical assumptions was challenged by Henri Poincare in his book, ‘Science and Method’. Poincare, a better French mathematician than Lagrange or Laplace, founded much of the theory of non-linear system behaviour. Software is a closed system of ‘logical definitions’ – step outside that box and the system crashes!
The mathematics of Hansen and Mann is not capable of providing an accurate picture of system behaviour with time. What Paul has demonstrated (and others), is that you can only trust post-priori data – apriori assumptions based on a closed algorithimic model are pretty worthless. And probabilities? – here is a grenade with a rusty pin to carry around in your pocket. I would like you to carry out a probability analysis to predict exctly when it might explode, so you can safely remove it in time. Probability analysis is again, only valid as a post-priori operation. What’s that? I am sorry, your voice is so high pitched I can’t make out what you are saying…. I guess it went off then…..
And as to age, I am 77 years old….
To bobn-Thanks a lot.
Just noticed on Gridwatch that demand is at 40G.That’s last years Dec /Jan,and Oct. was 30G.So it seems we will be 10G short this winter.
I would have thought a primary influence on Thwaites Glacier would be the volcanic plume under Marie Byrd Land, near the Ross Sea. It emits a similar amount of heat to the Yellowstone plume.
It also seems fairly obvious that these plumes are a reason why ice shelves become unstable and break off.
Well, certainly, reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not going to dissuade a volcano from doing its thing! Bunging in a virgin or two might – but probably would not.
Assuming for the moment what ‘they’ want us to believe, and looking at the situation of the Thwaites Glacier from the persepective of Cybernetics, the science of communication and control in systems, the proposed plan it seems is to control Nature to our benefit by the following sequence:
Individuals in West tell their governments to…
Tell the governments of China, India, etc. to eliminate proposed CO2 emissions…
With effect that CO2 in atmosphere goes down slowly…
With effect that temperature of atmosphere eventually goes down…
With effect that deep ocean currents change somehow…
With effect that Thwaites Glacier decides not to slip off…
With effect that we do not as a species get wet feet in a few hundred years’ time.
A lot of loose linkages in that mechanism.
Seems simpler and more feasible to stockpile a few rocks for building up the sea-walls if necessary. Or be prepared to move inland a little.
It’s not a volcano, it’s a volcanic plume, it produces no CO2.