Understanding Weather and Climate via Chaos Theory

I am not a mathematician, but I have published in the academic press on the subject of Complex Dynamic Systems, aka Chaos Theory, which certainly applies to weather and climate. But many Americans still don't understand how interconnected everything is when it comes to weather and climate. That makes it harder for some to accept human-caused climate change.

In Chaos Theory, tiny variations can grow to have huge effects in a dynamic system.  Weather and climate are such a dynamic system.

This article from Bloomberg shows how the LACK of warmer-than-average water in the Pacific Ocean (El Niño) results in worst-than-normal hurricanes in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico. Dry air blowing dust off of Africa’s Sahara Desert also plays a role in making bad hurricanes.

We know that warmer temperatures in the Arctic can mean colder North American winters, even though it seems counter-intuitive.

But logial falacies still persist:

"It's cold today, so there can't be global warning." 

"It snowed lot today, so there can't be global warming."

"There's no way to know what the temperature was before thermometers were invented, or before they were brought to such-and-such a location."

Each of these statements shows lack of critical thinking, yet each is common. And this makes it EASY for deniers to reinforce these wrong ideas.

The motivation of the big businesses that lobby against addressing climate change is short-term profits.  Big business is SO geared to quarterly profits reports that it has trouble seeing the long-term big picture.

Sooner or later, big business will conclude that climate change is bad for business. Insurance companies are getting a reminder in the wake of the huge hurricanes in the last several days, with billions of dollars of damages the insurance companies will need to pay out.  There is only so much they can get the government to pay for.

What I have never understood is that big companies DO make long term plans to improve profits, such as building new facilities that will take years to come online. Why can't they take the same approach to reducing carbon dioxide pollution NOW to leverage for greater profits in the future.  

We know that warming of the ocean and atmosphere is resulting in a higher rate of "extreme weather events."  What we used to call "extreme" is getting closer and closer to the new normal, unless we do something about it.

The Limited Lifespan of Technological Civilizations

A recent paper in the Cambridge Journal of Astrobiology concludes that the typical
technological species becomes extinct within 500 years after attaining modern technology and that this extinction leaves the civilization's planet uninhabitable.

There is some cool information here for both my science fiction writers out there, but also for people concerned about climate change.

The paper, by retired astrophysicist and mathematics professor Daniel Whitmire, of the University of Arkansas, makes the following arguments:

1. Based on the "Principle of Mediocrity," a cornerstone of modern cosmology, when there is only one data point, we need to assume that the data is typical of other examples, even though we cannot detect them. So, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should believe that humans are typical of other intelligent, technological species out there in the universe. Statistically, this means we are toward the middle of the bell-shaped curve, where the vertical line is in the middle of the graphic.

2.  So...assuming we really are typical, we only know two fundamental things, a) that we are the first technological species to evolve on the Earth and b) we are early in our technological evolution.

No archaeological evidence of a previous technological civilization has been found, (Erich von Däniken doesn't count) and a true technological civilization would leave evidence that could be found for millions of years.

3.  The evolution of technological species IS statistically probable, Whitmire says, because our typical technological civilization evolved in the first 22% of the projected total lifetime of the part of Earth's biosphere suitable for land animals.  If a technological species were to be improbable, then we would expect to have evolved toward the end of Earth's biosphere lifetime, i.e beating the odds.

4.  If technological species go extinct while leaving the biosphere viable, then later technological species are likely to evolve, Whitmire says. On the other hand, if extinction leaves the land biosphere uninhabitable, the reset time could easily take too long for evolution of another technological species, he contends.

5.  Given the principle of mediocrity, which says that humans are typical of other existing technological species, and because we are early in our technological evolution, the statical likelihood is that other existing technological species we encounter will also be in the relatively early stages of technology development, and be the first to evolve on their planet.

6.  When you calculate the bell-shaped curves of probability, the best we can say, based on current evidence, is that a technological civilization is "likely" to last 500 years or less, says the author.

• If our technological civilization survives another 1,000 years, then statistically the "likely" survival range would jump to 5,000 years or less.
• Note that we are already 100 years into our own technological civilization.

7.  Therefore, the best evidence we have, based on the statistical principle of mediocrity, is that the typical technological species has a short lifetime and that their extinction typically coincides with the extinction of their planetary biosphere.

Note: A technological species in defined by the author as those biological species that have developed the ability to affect the global environment and utilize electronic devices. That means that one of the signature characteristics defining a technological species is invention of radio!

I said that this blog post is for my science fiction writers out there, because I think that there is some cool basis for speculative writing here.  I would also caution that it is always POSSIBLY for a civilization to be an outlier, but the ODDS say that both we, and any aliens we encounter, will be toward the center of the curve, and thus similar to ourselves.

When it comes to climate change, this logic can also serve as a basis for what we know, based on statistics, about civilizations faced with climate change and other extinction-level events. Based on the very limited statistical information we have (one data point), the likelihood is that in 400 years or less, we will make OUR planet uninhabitable.

All of this speculation is based on statistics. It is not a prediction of real world events. But it matches pretty well with the existential threats of nuclear war and climate change that our society faces. It would be nice to prove that we are NOT typical, as current defined, because we beat the odds.

This blog post was inspired by this article, but I went to the original published journal article to write my summary.

Temperatures rising! What we REALLY know about climate change.

Update: Since I wrote this, there have been more and more extreme climate events. The warming and melting of the arctic is having an increasingly powerful effect on weather farther south, from a hurricane that retained its strength and crossed overland from Louisiana to New York to freezing weather in Texas.

Here is another of my posts that explains in detail where these extreme events are coming from.

     ---

Original article:

The first half of 2017 was the second-hottest first six calendar months on record, behind only 2016.

This article notes that this is significant because this year there is no El Niño, which can temporarily raise global average temperatures.

That's after correcting for all the "figures don't lie but liars can figure" distractions out there, global warming is a fact and is a clear threat.

For those of you unclear about the details, here is a primer:

• Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.  The most simple, straightforward explanations are the best, and when proposed explanations are tested, there needs to be broad agreement that the observed facts ARE well explained.
  
• We know that the Earth is warming. Multiple independent sources of data tell us this. It may vary a bit from year to year, but the trend is upward. Within reasonable limits of error, these different independent sources agree.
  
• We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide (CO2) is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and the fossil fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
  
• We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, is not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitudes have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified.
  
• We also know that in the prehistoric past, when the temperature was sometimes higher, the CO2 PPM was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not consistent with the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.
  
• So the question is "where is the CO2 coming from?"
  
• The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is not the cause of global warming is not consistent with the facts. If man-made CO2 is somehow not a contributing factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from? Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything. A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

To be fair, there have been attempts to suggest other causes for the climbing temperatures, but they are all over the map. There is no alternative explanation that has stood up to repeated independent testing, the way the human-produced CO2 explanation has.

So there it is. The ONLY consistent answer to the question of where the CO2 is coming from is human sources, primarily the energy industry burning fossil fuels.

It's inconvenient because solving the problem could reduce business profits for a while, but if we DON'T solve the problem, the global turmoil will also be bad for business.  Relatively modest changes now can reduce or prevent huge catastrophes in the future.

Climate Change Skeptics aren't Skeptics

When it comes to science, skeptics are people who question beliefs as the result of scientific scrutiny.

On the other hand, people making political arguments professing skepticism about climate change are more likely to be non-scientific in how they reach their conclusions.

So what does a true skeptic conclude about human-caused climate change?

Failure of Conservativism

The president's withdrawal from the Paris climate treaty is not just a failure of leadership.

It is a failure to be a true conservative.

So what do I mean by a true conservative and how did he fail?

Simple Thinking in a Highly Complex World

One of the defining characteristics of conservatives is that they expect things to be basically simple.  They think that once you figure out a problem, there is usually one identifiable cause, and the problem gets solved by doing one thing.  But that doesn't work out too well in a world that is highly complex, in reality.

Laser Snow

OK, so maybe this is a little weird. But when it's snowing at night, how do you know how much it's snowing?

You shine a laser pointer out into your back yard, of course, so every flake passing through makes the beam show.

(No airplanes or rock stars were targeted.)

Ice Storm Photos

Today was the aftermath of a big ice storm in much of the Great Plains.

This guy was perched in a tree near the road as I drove home, camera and 300 mm zoom lens always ready.

It was the first nice weather in about three days, so no doubt he was keeping his eyes open for a meal.

Reframing the Message on Climate Change

This Scientific American article takes a while to get to the point made by its headline, but has a great call to action for liberals to shape their message to appeal to the American mainstream.

Geese and Climate Change

The geese used to migrate in late October and early November.  Now they are migrating in December.

They have apparently bought in to the global conspiracy of thousands of scientists created by Mainland China to take money out of the pockets of hardworking billionaires.

Darn geese.

The Counter-intuitive Truth: A warmer planet can mean colder weather

We have had our first winter storm where I live in North America.  No doubt it will result in jokes about "we just got three inches of global warming."

But when the Polar Vortex brings colder weather and more snow to northern North America, it really IS the result of a warming planet.  Here's how it works:

Warmer water in the arctic warms the air above it more than in years past.  The North Pole is currently 36 degrees warmer than usual.  The warm air rises, and it is more humid than in years past because of the warmer water.  

When it gets up high, the warmer water moves southward.  As it cools off, and gets even colder than it started because it is up to high.  Being cold, it drops down closer to the planet again, bringing colder air to the surface, where it is pulled back up north to replace the rising air.  This causes cold, humid wind to be felt farther and farther south as warmer and warmer air rises over the North Pole.

But because the planet rotates, the wind doesn't go straight south to north. It rotates around the North Pole, west to east, or counter-clockwise as you look down from above.    

This is exactly what happens with a hurricane, except that it is not at the North Pole.  Warm air rises in the middle (the Eye) and air rushes in from the sides to replace it, rotating around the eye counter-clockwise.  The way the Earth rotates, and the tidal currents, make hurricanes move.  The rotation of the Earth keeps the Polar Vortex in place, centered on the North Pole.

And THAT is how a warming planet can cause colder, snowier winters in parts of North America.  

------------------------------------------------------

Bonus note:  People who really and truly think "it's cold where I am today so the planet can't be warming" are engaging in inductive reasoning, i.e. making broad generalizations based on limited specific observations. This is a logical fallacy.   

Proper deductive reasoning requires a large number of observations (data points) to be merged into a model or framework (theory) that can be used to predict future specific observations within acceptable error.  

What's next?

I was disappointed by the election results, but I could care less about second-guessing who should have done what differently.

I could care less what MIGHT happen under Trump.  All that speculation is just a distraction.

What I DO care about (as a registered independent) is whether Progressives figure out that the way they have been telling their story hasn't worked.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to retool their system and tell their story more persuasively to people who do NOT think the way they do.

I DO care about whether Progressives are able to organize in a way they never have before to stymie policy initiatives they don't like.

Business as usual will not cut it.

What's REALLY going on with NoDAPL

Why are state and local government officials in North Dakota freaking out about peaceful protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline?  It's because the protesters are challenging economic development amidst a tanking state economy, plain and simple.

North Dakota “has been the economic envy of every state in America for most of the past decade” according to Bloomberg. North Dakota had the lowest jobless rate, the highest increase in personal income, and the fastest-growing population, added Bloomberg, the result of the fracked tar sands oil boom that made North Dakota second only to Texas in domestic oil production.

But as you would expect from a boom-and-bust product, the market for North Dakota oil has tried up, the state's economy has collapsed, employment has plummeted, and the state has a $1 billion budget deficit.

Finding more markets for North Dakota oil would help reverse this free-fall. That's where the oil pipelines come in. DAPL says it would create 8,000 to 12,000 local jobs across its route during construction, plus lots of on-going local tax revenue.  It is not surprising that North Dakota officials eagerly want this revenue, and officials in all four states like the idea of income that does not result from taxes on voters.

THAT is why the local authorities are so vehemently on the side of the pipeline company.

As I have said before, I believe we need to get off fossil fuels as a primary energy source.  We need to do this because we are running out, because they cause global warming, and because renewable energy is simply a good idea.

Pollution of drinking water and tribal rights are important, but there is considerably more justification to NOT build new fossil fuels infrastructure.

Why Climate Deniers Deny

The study linked below used scientific analysis to examine the fallacies in arguments denying human-caused climate change.

         http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6

It found that the arguments climate change are often self-contradictory and that dissent is used by stakeholders to undermine the authority of science in order to postpone inconvenient political action: 

"Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness."

In other words, whereas the deniers complain loudly about a conspiracy against them, the evidence points to a dcoordinated conspiracy to ward off political action addressing global warning because they think it will be to expensive and hurt their short-term profits.

How We Solve the Problem

Wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energies are among the solutions to global warming.

Last time I talked about what we know about climate change and global warning. Change IS HAPPENING and we need to reverse it before it reaches a tipping point that we CANNOT reverse.

The number one way to reverse global warming is to stop, or at least greatly reduce, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) humans pump into the atmosphere. We do this by developing and operationalizing alternative energy sources, including wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and other energy sources.

As you see from the chart, power generation, transportation, and fossil fuel production make up nearly two-thirds of human greenhouse gas emissions, mostly CO2.  Solving the problem in those sectors would help scale back greenhouse gas production in other sectors, as well.

So, we need a policy climate in which we discourage further fossil fuel development, and promote alternative energy production.  We will likely never completely stop using fossil fuels, but we need to receive then for the most critical uses, not as the primary national energy source.

The corollary to this policy is that we need to stop building new refineries and pipelines.  You don't build expensive new infrastructure for something you need to phase out.

What else?

There are several other things we need in order to have a functional energy system for the decades ahead that is based on alternative energy and does NOT contribute to global warming:

• Rebuild the electrical grid.  The current system (in the United States, at least) is antiquated and fragile.  It is failure-prone, and time-consuming to repair.
• Storage capability.  The current energy system is use-it-or-lose-it.  With a few minor exceptions, there is no practical way to store energy when demand is low and retrieve it when demand is high.  California is trying, but we need a major state-of-the-art expansion so that we can even out high and low energy use times, which is more of an issue with wind and solar energy than it is with a fossil fuel economy.

We can do all of these things.  What is holding us back is rich people who think that solving this pocket will cost too much, reducing profits.  The problem with this way of thinking is that of we do NOT solve these problems, it will be even worse for business.

Climate Change Deniers

Increased flooding is one of the most common extreme weather consequences of global warming. 

I came across the tired old arguments of climate change deniers recently, in a Facebook group as it happens.  As usual, a few folks were parroting back the usual logical fallacies like "when it's -15 degrees, nobody talks about global warming."

Actually, scientists do. Science is about explanations that are consistent with observed facts, updated as observed facts become more and more accurate.

We know that the Earth is warming. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. We know that about twice as much carbon dioxide is appearing in the atmosphere as what the Earth can take back out via natural processes. We know that industry in general, and fossils fuel industry in particular, emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide. We know that the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

We know that water vapor has significantly more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2, but stays in the air for only a few days whereas CO2 stays for decades. We know that warmer air has more carrying capacity for water vapor and that the water vapor mostly resides in the upper atmosphere (meaning that what happens on the ground, like drought, it not particularly relevant because it is a local/regional thing). We know that water vapor concentrations at high altitude have been climbing at a statistically significant rate. So, the warming caused by the elevated CO2 is amplified, reinforcing itself because the warmer air holds more water vapor, causing even warmer air.

We also know that in the past, when the temperature was higher, the CO2 in the atmosphere was also higher. We know that there are natural sources that can cause increases in CO2, notably volcanoes, but the number of volcanic eruptions and other natural sources in the last century is not sufficient to explain the observed increase in CO2 and other less significant greenhouse gases.  Similarly, the deforestation of the Amazon has reduced the ability of the planet to turn CO2 back into oxygen, but not enough to fully explain the CO2 increase.

So the question is "what is the source of the excess CO2?"

The hypothesis that man-made CO2 is NOT the cause of global warming is NOT consistent with the facts. Human industry is CLEARLY producing large amounts of CO2. If man-made CO2 is somehow not the determining factor, then where is the excess CO2 coming from?

Those who would try to shrug global warming off as a "natural cycle" are not explaining anything.  A "natural cycle" still has causes and effects that can be studied and understood, particularly when they are happening NOW and not in the ancient past.

The natural-plus-man-made CO2 is causing the planet to warm. This is disrupting long-term weather patterns.  One result is more extreme weather events.

And, yes, some places DO get colder or more snow in the winter, because shifting currents and winds take arctic air to places it has not been before.

Some thoughts about solving the problem in my next post.