Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Simple Pocket Calculator Model Outperforms Complex Climate Models

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I don’t know if someone has seen this item on Phys.Org, or not. One of my most strident objections to global warming is the failure of climate models to actually ‘model’ what temperature has done over the last twenty years. Here’s this simple program that gets it right.

As one of the authors put it:

Dr Matt Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “A high-school student with a pocket scientific calculator can now use this remarkable model and obtain credible estimates of global warming simply and quickly, as well as acquiring a better understanding of how climate sensitivity is determined. As a statistician, I know the value of keeping things simple and the dangers in thinking that more complex models are necessarily better. Once people can understand how climate sensitivity is determined, they will realize how little evidence for alarm there is.”

The two graphs are worth the visit.

Then there is this:

The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built.

Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following –
The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.

The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.

As they say, “Junk In, Junk Out.”

One last quote:

Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 °C but 1 °C or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 °C warming would result.

The crony capitalists must be squirming.

Comments
#145 Joe, Have you read it all, or just the title, like StephenB?Piotr
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
Aurelio Smith:
Excellent paper you link to there, Joe.
Thank you
Not sure where you think it supports your claim that CO2 increase is a good thing.
It supports my claim that cleaner air leads to more sunlight reaching the earth's surface which leads to global warming. Not sure where you think I said it supports my claim that CO2 increase is a good thing. The fact that plants need CO2 and we need plants supports my claim that CO2 is good. The fact that history demonstrates that warm periods are the prosperous periods for humans and living organisms in general also supports that claim. Glaciers melt primarily due to the soot that rests on them and absorbs the sun's radiation. Soot covered snow melts even when the ambient temperature is below freezing. The climate changes and when the Sun takes its usual lullaby people will be screaming for increases in CO2, even though it ain't going to help because CO2 is such a small factor. But the plants will love you for it!Joe
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Hi Piotr- My apologies but I am going by what the experts said: Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thoughtJoe
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Zachriel: They weren't meant to be the same claim. I was trying to show independent ways of conjoining CM and QM. As to Dirac, I was throwing out the year from memory. It's actually 1952, I believe. I've looked for the paper I remember reading, but can't find it. I think I just found it. It's from 1945 and titled: "An Analogy Between Classical and Quantum Mechanics". From the paper:
There are two forms in which quantum mechanics may be expressed, based on Heisenberg’s maticrces and Schrodinger’s wave functions respectively. The second of these is not connected very directly with classical mechanics. The first is in close analogy with classical mechanics, as it may be obtained from classical mechanics simply by making the variable of classical mechanics into non-commuting quantities satisfying the correct commutation relations. . . . .[the 1st sentence, which is basically what I've said above] . . . [and the ‘next to last’ sentence] The method enables one to discuss trajectories for the motion of a particle in quantum mechanics and thus makes quantum mechanics more closely resemble classical mechanics. . . .
PaV
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
PaV: I know that the Schrodinger equations can be derived from the Hamilton-Jacobi equations. PaV (quoting): In the autumn of 1932, [Dirac] found another way of [developing quantum mechanics by analogy with classical mechanics] Those are not the same claims.Zachriel
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
skram: I found this looking around:
“In the autumn of 1932, [Dirac] found another way of [developing quantum mechanics by analogy with classical mechanics], by generalising the property of classical physics that enables the path of any object to be calculated, regardless of the nature of the forces acting on it. “[At the heart of this technique are two quantities.] The first, known as the Lagrangian, is the difference between an object’s energy of motion and the energy it has by virtue of its location. The second, the so-called ‘action’ associated with the object’s path, is calculated by adding the values of the Lagrangian from the beginning of the path to its end. In classical physics, the path taken by any object between two points in any specified time interval turns out... to be the one corresponding to the smallest value of the ‘action’... “Dirac thought that the concept of ‘action’ might be just as important in the quantum world of electrons and atomic nuclei as it is in the large-scale domain. When he generalised the idea to quantum mechanics, he found that a quantum particle has not just one path available to it but an infinite number, and they are – loosely speaking – centred around the path predicted by classical mechanics. He also found a way of taking into account all the paths available to the particle to calculate the probability that the quantum particle moves from one place to another... “Normally, he would submit a paper like this to a British journal, such as the Proceedings of the Royal Society, but this time he chose to demonstrate his support for Soviet physics by sending the paper to a new Soviet journal... Dirac was quietly pleased with his ‘little paper’ and wrote in early November to one of his colleagues in Russia: ‘It appears that all the important things in the classical [...] treatment can be taken over, perhaps in a rather disguised form, into the quantum theory’” (Farmelo, pp. 215-6). G. Farmelo, The strangest man, 1988.
PaV
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
skram: Instead, it explores every conceivable path. The amplitude of propagation (the propagator) is computed by adding the amplitudes of every possible path with the phase equal to its action in the units of h-bar. This is completely non-classical. But how is this any different from the calculus of variation? You have two end points, and, in between, the path can be anything. The calculus of variation, of course, leads to Hamiltonian theory, which is fully classical. Where we get into quantum theory is where we begin dealing with Plancks' constant. You've already stated that. But there is more than the possibility that underlying Planck's constant is some kind of flux, and which may in the end simply be the effect of some form of a classical field. IOW, something is going on 'classically' in between the 'standing' nodes of the wave equation. I know the orthodox position. I cannot "prove" the orthodoxy wrong. However, the similarity between QM and hydrodynamics was my original point. This point still stands, as irritating as this might sound to the "orthodox" ear.PaV
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
He’s not concerned with h-bar, but, rather, with ‘integral’ solutions. That’s why he focuses on the stationary solutions to the HJE.
We could derive the Time Independent Schrodinger Equation by differentiating the wave equation (Psi=e^i(kx-omega t), e=exponential, i = imaginary number,k=P/hbar. with respect to x twice and substituting that in the Energy equationMe_Think
February 2, 2015
February
02
Feb
2
02
2015
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
PaV:
I have Shankar’s book BTW. You’re failing to note, however, that Feynman’s Path-integral approach is basically a classical approach, though, as you say, it’s completely comformable to the Copenhagen Interpretation, for what that’s worth.
You're mistaken, PaV. Feynman's path-integral formulation is a full-blown quantum theory. A particle does not follow a definite trajectory minimizing the classical action, as it would in classical mechanics. Instead, it explores every conceivable path. The amplitude of propagation (the propagator) is computed by adding the amplitudes of every possible path with the phase equal to its action in the units of h-bar. This is completely non-classical. I will comment on Schroedinger's earlier paper tomorrow.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
skram: You've failed to address the quote from Schrodinger's very first paper, a quote that encompasses his approach to quantum mechanics. He's not concerned with h-bar, but, rather, with 'integral' solutions. That's why he focuses on the stationary solutions to the HJE. He might have later on began to understand his approach in terms of geometric versus wave optics, but that is not how he started out. He, of course, includes h-bar in his definition of operators. But Born simply assumes that his notion of a commutation relation involves h-bar as well, something he simply defines. So how is that anyway different. I have Shankar's book BTW. You're failing to note, however, that Feynman's Path-integral approach is basically a classical approach, though, as you say, it's completely comformable to the Copenhagen Interpretation, for what that's worth.PaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Interesting discussion. For what its worth here are my two cents: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Shape from Sound: Toward New Tools for Quantum Gravity - 2013 Excerpt: To unify general relativity and quantum theory is hard in part because they are formulated in two very different mathematical languages, differential geometry and functional analysis.,,, http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i12/e121301 Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htmbornagain77
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
PaV:
Schrodinger, OTOH, started with classical mechanics and solved for the stationary solutions of a wave equation. It works too. So, he derived QM from classical mechanics, and not the other way around.
No, there was no wave equation to begin with. There was a hunch by de Broglie that particles behave as waves. The question was: what is the wave equation satisfied by particles? To answer that, Schrödinger looked to optics, where the wave equation is known and the laws of geometrical optics can be obtained from it. Reasoning that the eikonal could be the analogue of mechanical action, Schrödinger postulated (rather than derived) his celebrated equation. There is no way to derive—in the logical sense—the Schrödinger equation from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The missing ingredient is Planck's constant, which does not exist in classical physics.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
PaV:
The paper uses Feynman’s formulation. And it uses the HJE. And using them together he gets QM. Why is this so hard to see or accept?
Feynman's path-integral formulation of quantum mechanics is equivalent to the standard Copenhagen version. One can be derived from the other. It is thus not surprising that the Schrödinger equation can be derived from Feynman's formulation. You don't need the Hamilton-Jacobe equation to do so. See any modern textbook on QM, e.g., Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Ch. 8.5. However, you cannot start with the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and obtain Schrödinger's. There is no hbar in the former. There is, of course, hbar in Feynman's formulation.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
skram:
Monckton, in any case, is not an expert in either engineering or climate science. Expecting that he can fix a field is complete nonsense.
I'm not expecting him to "fix" a field. But I think he's entirely capable of "fixing" an assumption. We talk about QM today because they're "assumptions" worked. The IPCC assumptions don't match reality; Monckton's model and assumption seems to do exactly that.PaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
skram:
However, to say that QM was derived from classical mechanics (as you seem to indicate)—that doesn’t seem right. QM is not derivative from classical physics. It is a whole new game.
Born basically postulated a new commutation rule, which functions like a Poisson Bracket, yet doesn't commute. It was a very good guess, but still a guess. Schrodinger, OTOH, started with classical mechanics and solved for the stationary solutions of a wave equation. It works too. So, he derived QM from classical mechanics, and not the other way around. His starting point, if you remember, is de Broglie's wave formulation of momentum. This is the connection between QM and classical mechanis: the de Broglie relation.PaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
skram: The paper uses Feynman's formulation. And it uses the HJE. And using them together he gets QM. Why is this so hard to see or accept?PaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
skram: The paper you cite of Schrodinger is from December of 1926. In November of 1926, Schrodinger's "Collected Papers" had already been published. What I'll be quoting comes from the very first paragraphs of Schrodinger's very first paper on QM found in those collected papers:
Now we do not look for a solution of equation (1') [modified HJE], but proceed as follows. If we neglect the relativistic variation of mass, equation (1') can always be transformed so as to become a quadratic form (of "psi" and its first derivatives) equated to zero. (For the one-electron problem this holds even when mass-variation is not neglected.) We now seek a function Psi, such that for any arbitrary variation of it the integral of the said quadratic form, taken over the whole co-ordinate space, is stationary, Psi being everywhere real, single-valued, finite, and continously differentiable up to the second order. The quantum conditions are replaced by this variation problem.
[The bold is my emphasis; the italics is Schrodinger's]PaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
PaV:
Again, QM is “analagous” to the HJE, and thus, to flow equations. I didn’t say that QM=HJE; rather, that they are analagous. One can then make correlations between analagous systems. This was part of my argument. It still stands.
Analogies only go so far. Knowing how something works in optics and then telling people in mechanics what to do isn't a great recipe for success. It did work for Schroedinger, but that's an exception, not the rule. Monckton, in any case, is not an expert in either engineering or climate science. Expecting that he can fix a field is complete nonsense.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
PaV:
Have you read Dirac’s book on Quantum Mechanics? I suppose you have. There are all kinds of ‘assumptions’ that he makes in order to get a working system for QM.
No question about that. They had to figure out how quantum mechanics works using hints from classical mechanics, experiments, and analogies with optics (where wave optics had been constructed in a somewhat similar way). However, to say that QM was derived from classical mechanics (as you seem to indicate)—that doesn't seem right. QM is not derivative from classical physics. It is a whole new game.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
PaV:
Why don’t you look at this paper? You’ll see that what I said is correct.
You're wrong. The derivation isn't from HJE (that's classical mechanics) but from Feynman's formulation of quantum mechanics via path integrals. Exactly what I said.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
skram: So no, you can’t derive quantum stuff from classical. You have to make some guesses and be lucky. Have you read Dirac's book on Quantum Mechanics? I suppose you have. There are all kinds of 'assumptions' that he makes in order to get a working system for QM. Have you read Born's 1926 book on his theory of QM? Probably you haven't. But if you do, then you'll see that Born more or less "postulates" the canonical equation, and, along the way, make some other assumptions. They, obviously, turn out to be correct; but, assumptions they were. So, you could just as easily say that QM comes from the HJE with the assumption that the eigenvalues of spectral light obey a commutation relation that is non-zero. Again, QM is "analagous" to the HJE, and thus, to flow equations. I didn't say that QM=HJE; rather, that they are analagous. One can then make correlations between analagous systems. This was part of my argument. It still stands. One last bit: I have my own intuitions about QM, and, in the final analysis, the correct theory will be a flux theory. Time will tell. I'm not young enough to likely see this, but you might.PaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
skram: Why don't you look at this paper? You'll see that what I said is correct. Derivation of the Schrodinger equation from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation in Feynman’s path integral formulation of quantum mechanicsPaV
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Joe, The mere fact of a paper's publication does not establish its precedence over an earlier paper. Harde's paper does not seem particularly authoritative. It has been published in a journal that does not have much of a history: it started publishing last year only and has so far published just 12 papers. I wouldn't bet on the reputation of this journal.skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Joe, Piotr- are you saying that warmer oceans do not release more CO2 than cooler oceans? What is your point? Aye, there's the rub, Joe. It all depends on the solubility of CO2 in water and the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (before and after warming). If the temperature has risen by 1K and the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere turns out to be higher by 40%, what does it tell us about the concentration of CO2 in the ocean? I've given you some hints, so please do the calculations and show us your results. You can also admit that you are scientifically illiterate and have no idea how to approach this problem, in which case your naive, uninformed opinion can be ignored.Piotr
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
Clean air and warmingJoe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Who established that Hermann Harde (a laser physicist, not a climate scientist) is right and a panel of expert climatologists is wrong?
It's called "peer-review". Who established the IPCC is right? The IPCC....Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Aurelio Smith is about as cowardly as one can get. Typical.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
skram:
In what sense has it been “superseded?”
It came after the IPCC paper.Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
In what sense has it been "superseded?" Who established that Hermann Harde (a laser physicist, not a climate scientist) is right and a panel of expert climatologists is wrong?skram
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
The clean air act has allowed for more sunlight to reach the earth's surface which warms the earth. The earth then radiates this heat which gets absorbed by the green-house gases and gets scattered throughout the local atmosphere. Why is that so difficult to grasp?Joe
February 1, 2015
February
02
Feb
1
01
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply