<x-charset ISO-8859-1>>Hi Keith > >I was afraid this was going to happen! Chaos is not a >scientific view rather a proven mathematical >(mathematics is stronger than scientific ĉòheoriesç§ >fact about the way nonlinear dynamical systems behave >in the real world. Laminar flow to turbulence is a >good example. Behavior cannot be predicted no matter >how much info is available and the size of the >computer. I ĉàelieveçCO2 leads to global warming, >but like any belief, there is no proof that it does. > >Best regards, > >Ken
Hi Ken I didn't misunderstand you, nor not see your point. I don't think you can extrapolate from the unpredictable real-world behaviour of a nonlinear dynamic system such as climate to the role in global warming of CO2 being unprovable. I'd say there's plenty of proof that CO2 leads to global warming - note "leads to", to say it "causes" global warming would be to ignore the complex interactions at play. Nor does that say what happens after that, whether more global warming or, indeed, chaos, tipping us into something perhaps quite different and probably nastier. I think this is a defeatist view anyway, chaos theory often leads to such a view - we can't learn anything useful about something with so many interacting variables, so let's just forget it. Butterflies flapping their troublesome wings in the Amazon jungle notwithstanding, there's a great deal that can be learned, and bigger computers sure do help. Even with the most complex nonlinear dynamic systems, of which climate is obviously one, much can be learnt about the variables at play and how they interact. That might not lead directly or soon to clearcut predictions such as would satisfy, or rather defeat, the Ostrich school of thought (?), but that's not the only aim. The temptation of this approach is to conclude that with so many factors to be considered, any single factor (such as human effects on atmospheric CO2 levels) is probably insignificant. By the same measure you might say that the more interacting factors there are, the more important each of them may be: the balance of such a complex system depends on all the various factors, and could potentially be upset by knock-on effects started (caused, led to) by seemingly tiny changes in an apparently minor factor. (Hence the butterfly.) After all, the (only?) rule of ecology is that everything is connected to everything else. Similarly, your "chaos" argument could be used against the study of ecology, which is also being called upon to make predictions, eg the recent revelations of the unexpectedly high number of species which will probably face extinction due to global warming. Anyway, when the balance of complex systems is being considered, it may not make such sense to think of single causes or even major causes, just causes, and few of the scientists involved are any longer in doubt that human-caused CO2 emissions are indeed a cause. On the other hand, I wrote this here about three years ago: >Looking at it another way, even if it turns out that human-caused >CO2 emissions have nothing or vanishingly little to do with climate >and that there is no global warming, that it's all a >myth/mistake/communist propaganda or whatever, moves to cut CO2 >emissions are generally beneficial. Replace dinodiesel with >biodiesel, for instance, and you're cutting GG emissions, yes, but >you're also reducing the cancer risk by more than 90%. Global >warming or not, we - the industrialised countries and especially the >US - are much too profligate with energy, especially fossil-fuel >energy. Regardless of emissions, it's a non-renewable resource and >we're wasting it. The climate change issue is doing more than >anything else to counter that. Energy efficiency is a general good, >and there's a hell of a lot of room for improvement. There are >spin-offs too. Someone who pays attention to energy efficiency and >avoids fossil fuels where possible will almost certainly leave a >generally smaller eco-footprint, and might get active in other areas >as well, such as Kirk's concern for water quality. Same goes for all >the scientific attention being focused on the climate, and thus on >the biosphere and the environment and our role in it... It's about >time science got involved in a detailed, integrated examination of >the biosystem, which is what's happening now. Maybe only climate >change as the header would serve to make it integrated enough to >counter science's great love of splintering itself in the name of >specialisation, learning more and more about less and less. This >huge climate-change study could turn out to be the most important >thing they've ever done, whatever the results for the global warming >case. There's another kind of real-world mathematics being brought to bear on the probabilities of catastrophic climate-change, that of the actuaries who work for the insurance industry. http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/27311/1 http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/28055/ http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/30866/1 Best Keith >>Global Warming >> >>I donç intend to be a heretic and only want to >>mention that the Earthç climate follows a strange >>attractor and there are mathematical reasons, verified >>by experiment, why itç not possible to know what will >>happen to global temperature with the addition of CO2. >> The temp may go up, go down, or remain about the >>same. Hereç a readable introduction to the subject >>from Harvard Science Review >> >>Chaos All Around >> >>http://hcs.harvard.edu/~hsr/pdfswinter2003/young29-32.pdf >> >>Best regards, >> >>Ken > >Hello Ken > >I'm sure you'll be able to find equally scientific views also duly >verified by experiment that claim just the opposite, and yet others >that claim something different to both. CO2 is not the only factor >at work, and I don't think anyone claims it is, or at least not >anybody to be taken half-seriously. > >What it all boils down to (or perhaps up to) is a clash between two >incompatible approaches. One is the old way, soon to follow the >dinosaurs, that maintains that "There's no proof that..." so let's >get on with business-as-usual, while increasing the PR budget by 10% >to ensure that anything that might begin to look like proof gets >discredited, no matter how, chuck some more money at the Wise Use >think-tanks so spin can continue to accomplish for public opinion >what reason can't, and chuck a bit more at the FCC lobbyists to help >that along a bit too, and maybe appoint a new Risk Assessment >manager to make sure all risks are taken by others, though the >causes may be ours, and that none of it hits the bottom line, since >that's all that really counts. > >The other way is the Precautionary Principle. > >If there was ever a case for the Precautionary Principle and against >the Way of the Ostrich, climate-change has to be it. > >Did you see this, by the way? > >Global effort to plot climate change >http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?e89222694&e=6347 >Nature > >http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994161 >Distributed climate model aims for errors >10:28 12 September 03 > >Here's a previous message about a view that's still being taken >seriously, that rising O2 levels will lead to a sudden and >catastrophic new Ice Age - just the sort of thing the Pentagon seems >to be waxing anxious about: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/28233/ > >Ahh... what the hell - pollution, slavery, overpopulation, hunger >and poverty, war, death and disaster, all such cheerful stuff... >Here's a message from the future, we could use a bit of scathe and a >giggle I reckon. > <snip> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/index.php?list=biofuel Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </x-charset>
