Chaos and climate - part1: Linear systems

It's D&N quiz time again!  Let's get straight into it!

Starter for one:  Who said this? ...

“…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

No?  A rabid climate change denying fossil fuel company CEO?  Me?  Well yes, obviously in my case.  But in the case of the fossil fuel company CEO - and all CEO's for that matter - they'd rather chew their own dicks off than utter a cancel culture provocation like that!  Watch their depots get blockaded by Stinking Rebellion and Isolate Britain?  Get voted off the board by the shareholders?  Not bloody likely.

Astonishing though it may seem, that was the UN's IPCC!  Yes, the doyen of anthropogenic climate change and "carbon causes warming" linear orthodoxy made that statement in their climate pronouncement named "IPCC AR4 WG1".

A series of articles on the WattsUpWithThat site by someone called Kip Hansen brought the claim to my attention, and the implications of it are explained in layman's terms beautifully in those articles, the first of which is linked here and the subject of this post ...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/15/chaos-climate-part-1-linearity/

I'll overlay my commentary onto those articles one-by-one, per my post title.

So linear systems right, you remember them from school?  You take a range of input values and you mark them up on the x axis.  Then you process them one-by-one through a calculation to produce the output, with the caveat that you do not feed the output back into the input of the calculation in any way.  You plot the output on the y axis.

In their strictest, simplest form, linear systems have their output directly proportionate to their input.  For example: y = 2x.  Take the input on the x-axis and double it, then plot that on the y-axis ... 

Linear system: A system in which alterations of an initial state will result in proportional alterations in any subsequent state.

In mathematics there are lots of linear systems. The multiplication tables are a good example: x times 2 = y. 2 times 2 = 4. If we double the “x”, we get 4 times 2 = 8. 8 is the double of 4, an exactly proportional result.

To help us along, let's use a maths run-book rather than stale graph images shopped by someone else.  Take a hike over to the Desmos site, in particular, click this run-book example ...

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/smufmlkkam

Let's explain what's going on here.

In the body of the chart you can see the x axis going from -10 to 10, and the y axis running from -15 to 15.

Also in the body two linear equations are plotted, one red, one blue, and their crossing point a green dot.

In the run-book steps panel you can see three steps.  Steps 1 and 2 are the formulae of those two equations plotted in the chart.  Don't worry about them yet, we're going to delete them in a sec and do our own anyway.  And the third step is the cross over point:  -1 on the x axis and 3 on the y axis:  (-1,3).

The run-book works its way down the steps plotting the results of the formulae and points that you've "coded" into the steps.

So, click on the "X" on the right of each step and delete the three of them.  Your chart should be blank and the run-book steps empty and waiting for you to input your equation(s).

Click in the step 1 formula field and type: y = 2x .

You'll notice a purple line drawn across the chart from bottom left to top right.  Congratulations!  You've just coded your first linear system equation in the Desmos run-book tool!  Much quicker than plotting the dots on graph paper like we old farts and fartettas used to do at school!

To check it's working, pick a value on the x axis, like 2 for example.  Trace it up to the purple line and then across to the y axis, you get 4.  So y = 2x, putting x = 2 into the formula yields y = 2 times 2 = 4. So y = 4.  Check - the purple line is correct.

Now you can play with the formula - knock yourself out!

Push the line up by adding 3 to the formula ...

y = 2x + 3

The line gradient stays the same but instead of running through the origin (0, 0) it runs through the point (0, 3) higher up the y axis.  That's as complicated as it gets for linear systems: still proportionate but also offset by an amount.

Flatten the line by changing the 2x to 0.5x ...

y = 0.5x + 3

Now the line is flatter with a gradient of only 0.5 but still passes through the offset point (0, 3) instead of the origin (0, 0).

To change the gradient to a downward slope from left to right make the 0.5 negative, so -0.5x.  To pass through a point lower on the y axis change the +3 to -3 ...

y = -0.5x - 3

Congratulations again!  You've just mastered linear mathematics!  You've gone bottom left to top right, top left to bottom right, changed the gradient, and raised and lowered the offset of the line.  There isn't much more that you can do with a straight line on a two dimensional surface!  That's a linear system for you.

Back to Kip's narrative ...

He makes a fantastic observation.  It's one of a plethora of state education brain prepping techniques to turn pupils into linear minded simpleton authoritarian type people ...

Aside: It is this feature of linearity that is taught in the modern schools. School children are made to repeat this process of making a graph of a linear formula many times, over and over, and using it to find other values. This is a feature of linear systems, but becomes a bug in our thinking when we attempt to apply it to real world situations, primarily by encouraging this false idea: that linear trend lines predict future values. When we see a straight line, a “trend” line, drawn on a graph, our minds, remembering our school-days drilling with linear graphs, want to extend those lines beyond the data points and believe that they will tell us future, uncalculated, values. This idea is not true in general application, as you shall learn.

To be continued ...

SoD

Comments

[Bob]

And so it came to pass that SoD declared himself the Fisher King of the Climate Holy Grail ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_King ). Careful of your balls, Son.

[JK]

But but but Loz!

Stating stuff like “…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" runs completely counter to the accepted dogma.

And yes "dogma" being very deliberately used, its definition being:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a religion.

2. A principle or statement of ideas, or a group of such principles or statements, especially when considered to be authoritative or accepted uncritically.

3. A settled opinion; a principle, maxim, or tenet held as being firmly established.

(The clerisy is gonna really be angry with you should you keep to this line of heresy Loz - why you might even find yourself being dragged to the breaking wheel!)

[Loz]

Hey JK! Been quiet - all's well I hope?

I have to say Brexit is a whinge magnet when all is said and done as far as I'm concerned. I can always beg Fluffbun to marry me for the Czech passport and make my getaway.

But the Climate Alarmism thing is effing terrifying. I mean, it's really starting to affect me. Every generation has to live through its out of control power and control issue, whether fake eugenics science in race socialism or fake social science in class socialism, but this one is so pervasive, its potential so destructive, its adherents so self-righteous, it feels like a perfect storm /end of worlds collision is coming.

I'm just going to keep typing until they take me away. The job might go first. If they make the "unconscious bias" training mandatory there's going to be a pre-collision collision, if you know what I mean.

Where do these people come from? Re-animating like an endless shoot 'em up zombie game.

SoD

[JK]

All's well (for the moment anyway - me and 'She who would have me unquestionably obey' are in the process of moving).

"Where do these people come from?"

For our purposes I'd venture Indiana and Sweden and the "*Biden Administration" mostly just now.

* ("Biden" in quotes owing to there being some uncertainty about whether his egg is still on his biscuit or if "he's" actually a committee pulling "his" strings.)

[Whitewall]

"Where do these people come from"? A part of 'where' can be found coming from here, closer to you than to me. Takes a bit to read:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/herbert-marcuse-and-new-intolerance/

No good came from the rectum of this branch of the Frankfurt School.

[Bob]

JK, it's obvious you've never been to Indiana. Except for a few small blue bubbles it's as red as Satan's backside.

The article about Herbert Marcuse poses a really interesting question. Does the girl with green hair in the testosterone ad have one nipple higher than the other?

[Whitewall]

Sorry Bob, that may have been out of your wheel house. Try this, it's tried and true:
It’s that ol’ Irish Democracy:

More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called ‘Irish Democracy,’ the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.

Just keep screwing with them and know that it makes them crazy. Works for all of us no matter where we live.

[Bob]

Whitewall, how many people do you think have even heard of Marcuse, never mind tried to follow his philosophy? While it's true there are certain principles that apply in politics, they have nothing to do with philosophy except among ideologues, and they are nowhere near a majority in our democracy.

One effective technique the ideologues at National Review use to activate followers is to convince them there's always an all-powerful enemy at the gate poised to bring down their social status, finances, and so on.

It's true that apathy can damage democracy, but it's always been thus, and the US is still here. Income inequality, offshoring, general lack of decent education, mis- and disinformation on social media and our broken health care system are greater threats to our society at this point.

[Bob]

Here's an article that defends the importance of political philosophy:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-philosophy

It contains this:

"Like all aspects of human experience, political philosophy is conditioned by environment and by the scope and limitations of mind, and the answers given by successive political philosophers to perennial problems reflect the knowledge and the assumptions of their times."

In other words, political philosophy is always shifting in meaning depending on the times and general ability of the populace to understand. This makes it completely relative knowledge, since it's not an expression of any fixed idea that can be falsified like ideas subject to the scientific method.

Note the article mentions aspects of society that can be studied scientifically and that they can be a foundation for philosophy. However, philosophy is only an attempt to link the current state of facts to a story, and facts are constantly improved by science, leaving philosophy shifting sand.

[Whitewall]

So SoD need not read the link I gave him as a starter to the question 'Where do these people come from'? I'll let him look if he wishes and make up his own mind. Political philosophy has guided Post Modernism and vice versa which has a hand along with destructive aspects of Frankfurt School social theory. In addition, some social and cultural aspects of original Marxism plays a role too. It all adds up to the original question's origin. People middle age and older have heard of Marx and Post Modernism. Political philosophies do shift over time and some are bastardized and brought forward to meet the needs of current contests between those who shall rule and be ruled. It's always 'how'.

[Bob]

You're confusing cause and effect:

"Postmodernism is a broad movement that developed in the mid-to-late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism, marking a departure from modernism. The term has been more generally applied to describe a historical era said to follow after modernity and the tendencies of this era."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Postmodernism was a response to changing conditions. It has a philosophical aspect, but is more a marker of social evolution. Marxism is irrelevant, even in China where Marx is officially admired.

[Whitewall]

But then these 3, PM, Marxist class theory and elements of the aforementioned Frankfurt School gave us a major illness in Western culture today: Critical Theory which first landed in some major Western Unies back in early 1980s, first as Critical Legal Theory. Now we have added 'Race' to the mix and those who need this ideology will 'fill in the blank' with anything their current 'new' ideology demands to wage war against that which opposes this ideology. None of these 3 are irrelevant to the Progressive Left of today. These three are their seed corn and the Progs intend to continue sowing until stopped. Some of us intend for them to reap a bitter harvest.

It only requires people to ask SoD's question 'where do these people come from'? Then add 'why' do they do this to normal people and for what purpose.

[Bob]

My hat is off to you, Whitewall. You're the first person of your political type I've found who seems to realize Critical Race Theory is only taught in law schools and pre-law. However, you once again fail to realize it's a response to a real social problem. Or do you actually believe that race has nothing to do with the way our society is run? And again you seem to believe the whole idea comes from a cabal intent on bringing you down.

The answer to SoD's question is that there will always be people who disagree with him on any subject. There are always people who live in different circumstances and have different sets of personality characteristics and knowledge sets. Welcome, both of you, to planet Earth. Try to enjoy the rest of your stay.

[Glesga]

Bob, I read an article the other day that suggested global warming and the extinction of the human race could allow other species we humans have almost driven to extinction could survive and prosper and the forests recover.

[Bob]

Glesga,

That seems like alarmist speculation. There are steps being taken to get to more high-tech energy sources. A few of the recent breakthroughs are better batteries that will finally make electrical vehicles widely practical and better windmills.