A Prediction Regarding Fusion Power

[flying_eagle]

When you say nyquist, I being in electronics think of sampling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Sh ... ng_theorem

Not following.

Look lets not worry about this debate it is in being dealt with both domestically and internationally, and we would each look toward ourselves to decide how we will help in this effort.

If you prefer to bat around this debate, I give it a few more cycles, but we need to stick to one point at a time so that each can be dealt with.

[MSimon]

When you say nyquist, I being in electronics think of sampling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Sh ... ng_theorem

Not following.

OK. I see you have not studied the subject which you claim to have definitive answers for in detail. I can help.

In order to properly represent a multidimensional problem you have to sufficiently sample the system in space and time to get the proper initial conditions.

Initial conditions are improperly sampled so starting conditions are sparse compared to required initial conditions.

Then you have the problem of not enough data points in the analysis in order to get the detail required for sufficient accuracy.

What is done to get past that is that things like clouds and rain are parameterized rather than simulated. The same is true of the effects of UV on the upper atmosphere. In addition the parameters may be different in every grid square due to variations in land height and the interaction of clouds with oceans vs land.

Now what are the odds that the parameters are sufficiently well chosen for 100 year runs?

And then it is well accepted that climate is a chaotic system. See Lorenz in the following wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

That means small errors can potentially drive the simulation to non-physical results.

Now the errors can be in initial conditions or even truncation errors in the math.

I also discuss Nyquist with respect to climate here:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -into.html

A problem with the models:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... o-hot.html

Clouds - water vapor - climate - video you should really watch the whole thing about an hour. The research has been confirmed with results due to be published in 2010 I think. Needless to say - not in the models.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... s-not.html

Well that should keep you busy.

BTW I used to be an AGW believer until I started studying this stuff in depth.

[flying_eagle]

You presume I'm using models to validate my claim. I understand their incompleteness. In fact that is one of my points that I make that many processes work together to change the climate. It isn't just a CO2 problem.

Now, CO2 can create a forcing, but as already indicated, so can other natural sources of carbon if their emissions also rise.

Just in terms of glacier and ice sheets, scientists are looking at warming water not just air temp. But also melting water, fracture hydraulics, re-freeze expansion cracking, soil overburden changes due to thinning, isostatic rebound, you get the point. No one model includes all these and climate combined. Many models are just too few dimensioned. But when researchers begin to look at many physical processes and the studies of others they begin to draw conclusions beyond models.

For example it is only recently that more weight is being added to marine clathrates because the science thought that thermal penetration would take too long in deeper depths. But alas, currents move warm water. Also as sea level changes and temps change the pressure depth changes and the stability zone with it. So ice phase can go back to gas phase as done by work at MIT http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/methane-0902.html and pressure build ups can happen and faster releases than earlier projected.

[MSimon]

You presume I'm using models to validate my claim. I understand their incompleteness. In fact that is one of my points that I make that many processes work together to change the climate. It isn't just a CO2 problem.

Now, CO2 can create a forcing, but as already indicated, so can other natural sources of carbon if their emissions also rise.

Just in terms of glacier and ice sheets, scientists are looking at warming water not just air temp. But also melting water, fracture hydraulics, expansion cracking, soil overburden changes due to thinning, isostatic rebound, you get the point. No one model includes all these and climate combined. Many models are just too few dimensioned. But when researchers begin to look at many physical processes and the studies of others they begin to draw conclusions beyond models.

For example it is only recently that more weight is being added to marine clathrates because the science thought that thermal penetration would take too long in deeper depths. But alas, currents move warm water. Also as sea level changes and temps change the pressure depth changes and the stability zone with it. So ice phase can go back to gas phase as done by work at MIT http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/methane-0902.html and pressure build ups can happen and faster releases than earlier projected.

Can't disagree with the above (generally - I'm not familiar with all the details). However you brought up ~400 ppm. Which could only have come from a model. There is no tipping point at any reasonable CO2 concentration (below 1,500 ppm - maybe more).

you might also like this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/n ... cord-high/

Cosmic rays may lead to cooling.

[flying_eagle]

However you brought up ~400 ppm. Which could only have come from a model.

Actually that is funny you brought that up and now we come full circle with the beginning of this post. I was unconcerned about the climate, always thought of it in terms that we had time to deal with it. That was before I learned from a little 13yr old child with a gift of visions back in March 2008. In those visions while awake, she saw two possible futures. One where we are okay, and in the other, Southern Greenland begins a catastrophic failure and the climate begins to change quickly. By 2100 9 out of 10 people are dead as misery and suffering was long and slow due to heat, crop failures, disease from mosquitoes and rodents, bad water, governments collapsing, people fighting and stealing. It was this child who told me what the difference was between these two futures, and the CO2 levels which created this tipping point. Later, I would begin a research that led me to agree with her statements. It will be up to us to decide which future we want. Time is still changeable for now, but not for much longer.

[MSimon]

However you brought up ~400 ppm. Which could only have come from a model.

Actually that is funny you brought that up and now we come full circle with the beginning of this post. I was unconcerned about the climate, always thought of it in terms that we had time to deal with it. That was before I learned from a little 13yr old child with a gift of visions back in March 2008. In those visions while awake, she saw two possible futures. One where we are okay, and in the other, Southern Greenland begins a catastrophic failure and the climate begins to change quickly. By 2100 9 out of 10 people are dead as misery and suffering was long and slow due to heat, crop failures, disease from mosquitoes and rodents, bad water, governments collapsing, people fighting and stealing. It was this child who told me what the difference was between these two futures, and the CO2 levels which created this tipping point. Later, I would begin a research that led me to agree with her statements. It will be up to us to decide which future we want. Time is still changeable for now, but not for much longer.

The deal is: currently there is nothing the USA can do to change things except invent cheaper ways to produce "green energy". That will require a robust economy.

I see no point in crippling our economy for nothing.

BTW I'm losing confidence in your seer - if it is the same one. Did your seer come up with the 400 ppm number?

====

BTW it is generally accepted (by warmists and non-warmists) that doubling CO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv) will increase "average" temperatures by about 1 deg. C. With no other effects included.

The divergence is the "water vapor amplification factor".

Models use an amplification factor of from 1.5 to about 4. Actual measurements show an amplification factor of .5. The .5 means the actual warming will be .5C.

I can show you the graphs if you are interested.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... lieve.html

Climate as a moral issue:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... issue.html

[flying_eagle]

I have generally found that no matter if presented facts or otherwise, people don't generally change . They typically only reinforce there viewpoints. It is not for me to convince you. You asked and I gave you the truth. I'm personally relieved that you have lost faith. Seek the truth for yourself.

I found even scientists have problems letting go of their built theories to look in different directions. That is why younger scientists usually make the next discovery while the old ones just park it in a teaching position.
Even my professors in college spoke of this problem, I expect that hardened positions die hard.

What I found is that if I'm open minded, I may even learn from the most unlikely of sources who also uses some very unlikely sources for their self.

BTW, Sometimes there is danger in arrogance, ignorance, and carelessness, and occasionally that is why some get Darwin awards.
For others, they may have heeded the warnings.

[MSimon]

I have generally found that no matter if presented facts or otherwise, people don't generally change . They typically only reinforce there viewpoints. It is not for me to convince you. You asked and I gave you the truth. I'm personally relieved that you have lost faith. Seek the truth for yourself.

I found even scientists have problems letting go of their built theories to look in different directions. That is why younger scientists usually make the next discovery while the old ones just park it in a teaching position.
Even my professors in college spoke of this problem, I expect that hardened positions die hard.

What I found is that if I'm open minded, I may even learn from the most unlikely of sources who also uses some very unlikely sources for their self.

BTW, Sometimes there is danger in arrogance, ignorance, and carelessness, and occasionally that is why some get Darwin awards.
For others, they may have heeded the warnings.

But I was converted to warmist once. I was convinced by their data.

Then I looked deeper into it. Corrupt. So I converted back to a science based attitude. And I decided to study the subject intensively.

BTW you might want to re-read what you wrote.

As an engineer I'm data based. But it has to be good data.

BTW how do you explain the models showing gains > 1 and the data showing a gain of .4 to .6?

How do you explain the PDO not being included in ALL the models? It was discovered in 1997. How do you explain that even in the models it is included in the sensitivity to CO2 was not corrected? That of course means that the effect of the PDO has to be exaggerated so the models have some semblance of match to current reality.

And you still haven't explained how accurate predictions can be made about the future in a chaotic system? Lorenz in his study of climate said it can't be done and there by founded the field of chaos. That was back 30 or 40 years ago.

[alexjrgreen]

And you still haven't explained how accurate predictions can be made about the future in a chaotic system? Lorenz in his study of climate said it can't be done and there by founded the field of chaos. That was back 30 or 40 years ago.

Chaos isn't unpredictable. If it was, life would be impossible. Rather, only certain aspects of it are predictable.

See, for example Chaos Theory and Strange Attractors

[MSimon]

And you still haven't explained how accurate predictions can be made about the future in a chaotic system? Lorenz in his study of climate said it can't be done and there by founded the field of chaos. That was back 30 or 40 years ago.

Chaos isn't unpredictable. If it was, life would be impossible. Rather, only certain aspects of it are predictable.

See, for example Chaos Theory and Strange Attractors

Alex,

What is unpredictable apriori is the jump from one strange attractor to another. And if you say otherwise then give me a date +/- 20 years when we head for the next ice age.

[alexjrgreen]

What is unpredictable apriori is the jump from one strange attractor to another. And if you say otherwise then give me a date +/- 20 years when we head for the next ice age.

We should already be in another ice age...

Although the chaotic attractors themselves can be well defined, the flip from one attractor to another is, as you say, extremely sensitive to very small changes.

It's been suggested that the use of fire by early humans provided just such a change at exactly the right point to avert another ice age.

[flying_eagle]

I just read this article on potential Anthropocene mass extinction : http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... 427281.300
Perhaps a 13 year old's visions are not so far off the mark for potential futures? Yet, you know the first thing many like to do is attack the messenger, or the message.

Msimon, you make a lot of good points but overall that is all they are just a few points.

Luckily for mankind, the rest of us, and I'm including the international effort like the UN, are not willing to try out an experiment of let's just wait until we are ready for change.

Let us not concern ourselves for the moment with what makes us rich or comfortable. Let's not allow mankind to achieve a "Darwin award" for stupidity when the science community knew better.

For those that deny these facts, I'm afraid you will find yourself, sadly, on the side of history with the prospects that you and other public deniers like those in Washington, who only confused the public, delayed needed legislation, and as a young child said, almost brought us to the brink with delay related tactics.

The number one pitiful reason is self luxury related, self interests like complaining about the economy, when millions are at risk of starving. You see I don't blame the previous generation for they didn't know better, but now that we do, we will have to live with our moral decisions of whether we truly helped others or only just ourselves. Each of us can help or hinder the needed transformation to a sustainable future for future generations. Each must decide what they truly care about.

[alexjrgreen]

The number one pitiful reason is self luxury related, self interests like complaining about the economy, when millions are at risk of starving.

Not sure this helps the debate much.

The nature of politics means that the case for, and the case against, global warming are both overstated, as are the likely costs to countries and to individuals.

Whether or not carbon dioxide is the main event, it plays some part in the feedback mechanisms when dissolved in water vapour. So dumping increasing quantities into the atmosphere may be less than wise.

We already have the technology to economically capture all the carbon dioxide generated by a coal power station. It's entirely possible, right now, to stabilise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Whether that will have an impact on climate change remains to be seen.

[flying_eagle]

I agree regarding some hype issues. However, many consumers deny the unsustainable, and we don't want to end up like the Rapa Nui, of Easter Island or worse. I choose instead to begin making changes, and perhaps, a more conservative approach than just using denial.
As I said, each must decide what they truly care about. Each can make a contribution however large or small, and it is smart to look at such things as carbon footprints, in at least that small way, you are making a difference.

[BenTC]

Yet, you know the first thing many like to do is attack the messenger, or the message.

I'm quite open minded about mysticism, but your comment provoked this opposing thought:
"The first thing many [messengers] like to do is accused people of attacking the messenger"

For no reason in particular, the following come to mind...
+ fact - something you can prove to others
+ belief - something you can prove to yourself
+ faith - something you can't prove