Professor quits job at university over "craziness" in climate science

a reply to: TheRedneck

Differential Equations is an advanced method of solving equations not solvable under classical calculus.

My mistake. I thought differential equations (no need for capitalization, they aren't God) related functions to their derivatives. Thank you for the information that derivatives are not calculus.

UBC Calculus Online Course Notes


Maybe it's the corn.

a reply to: Phage

I capitalize specific courses (or sequences of courses) to separate them from general subjects. To the math layman, I suppose everything beyond algebra is called "calculus." But there is much more to it than that. Even with my math background, there are many areas I can not yet comprehend and more that I need to be more intuitive in.

Classical calculus covers limits, derivatives, anti-derivatives, and integration, including several different analysis methods of more complex integrals. Differential Equations covers methods of dealing with equations of the form d^nx/dt^n + A(n-1)d^(n-1)x/dt^(n-1) + A(n-2)d^(n-2)x/dt^(n-2) ... + A(2)d^2x/dt^2 + A(1)dx/dt + A(0)x = f(t) + C. They're pretty common in nature, and the reason exponentials exist so frequently in solutions. Vector Calculus covers similar equations in vector form, where x = x1+x2+x3...+x(n), where x(i) are orthogonal.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Calculus is not intuitive. Very cool, but not intuitive.

Or maybe it's just the corn.

a reply to: Greven

No, correlation is not by itself causation, but it does insinuate an investigation is needed. The calculus you describe is a good start, a very good start, but I would recommend adding Differential Equations, Linear Algebra, and possibly some Graduate Math studies as well if you really want to understand the climatologists.

Believe it or not, Wikipedia can be a decent source for a primer on various mathematical concepts... and Khan Academy covers some higher math.

As for the lower stratosphere, I am not yet sure. I suspect it is part of a feedback mechanism, but at this time that's really just a guess.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

Maybe not to you. Too much corn?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Not yet.
But the sun hasn't set as yet.

a reply to: Phage

Cheers then.

I'll abstain tonight. Trying to finalize some magnetic circuit equations.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
You mentioned in other words that it is logical to assume closed loop control of atmospheric CO2, which I agree with.

However, we don't know the current response of this loop and we are reducing its ability to respond via destruction of rain forest etc whilst simultaneously applying more error via combustion of fossil fuels.

Maybe the loop can respond quick enough, maybe it can't. It's likely that our models will never be good enough so I believe we should err on the side of caution even if this means a reduction in living standards for us lucky, over consuming westerners. The stakes are just too high.

a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

a reduction in living standards

Explain further what you foresee as an acceptable solution. Do we get to keep the lights on for only 18 hours a day?

a reply to: D8Tee

Do we get to keep the lights on for only 18 hours a day?

You can keep them on 24 hours a day if you want. It just might cost you a buck more if you do. Me? I don't need them on 24 hours a day.

a reply to: Phage
You don't have heat tape on your water pipes and minus 30 weather to deal with.

a reply to: D8Tee

What does that have to do with:

Do we get to keep the lights on for only 18 hours a day?

a reply to: Phage

If we lose the power here in winter, we have to act fast or risk having our water pipes freeze and burst.
I get what you are saying, you are favor of a carbon tax.

a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

I agree with most of that. We need to reduce (stop) the destruction of the rain forest. The ocean, however, with its massive store of algae, actually scrubs much more carbon dioxide than the rainforests. Considering we also eat seafood, which eats algae, algae seeding seems to be a win-win-win plan.

While it is true we may well never understand the exact relationships involved with climate regulation, we can get pretty close, and I am actually encouraged by the results of climate models. We may never be able to say, "a carbon dioxide concentration of 1254.6739 ppmv will cause the global temperature to stabilize at 23.657 degrees Celsius and release 45,763,689.54 cubic meters of ice from Antarctica, contributing to 15.764 mm of sea level rise," but we can easily get to a point where we can say, "carbon dioxide levels above 1000 ppmv are expected to raise global temperatures by 5 degrees Celsius." (Those are made-up numbers, BTW, for illustration only.)

I understand how erring on the side of caution is appealing, but the climate is easily the most complex and interrelated system we have ever tried to analyze. At this point in time, we are assuming that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is the primary driving force behind global temperatures. That is not a foregone conclusion! The truth could just as easily be that rising carbon dioxide levels are an indication of another feedback that is countering a worse problem that we do not understand.

That is not a theory, nor even a hypothesis... just a possibility. There are many times that controls can initially act completely contrary to intuitive expectations, but given time act appropriately. For instance, if one wishes to move an airplane from one elevation to a higher elevation using optimal control techniques, the fastest method is not to start climbing! It is to make a very short climb, dive to increase velocity, then to use that velocity to climb to the new altitude (this is an interesting bit of trivia that hampered research into optimal control theory for many years, as researchers tended to stop the simulation when the dive began, thinking their equations were wrong).

In short, doing something that looks like erring on the side of caution can hamper the natural controls that would solve the issue more effectively. While I doubt that is the case with carbon dioxide levels, I have to, as a researcher, accept the possibility.

And before anyone jumps out of their skin, I am NOT suggesting we increase fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels are an issue, even without considering carbon dioxide. They are responsible for much of the world's warlike actions, for instance, and that alone means we would be better off to replace them. We just can't replace them until we have something to replace them with.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

a reduction in living standards

Explain further what you foresee as an acceptable solution. Do we get to keep the lights on for only 18 hours a day?

For now at least trying to waste as few resources as possible. Like turning the lights off when it isn't dark

a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

"Lights on' or 'Lights off' Is an euphemism for the electrical supply in general, sorry if this caused any confusion. When we reach the point of rolling blackouts because we have let 'green energy' inundate our grid, it won't be, 'oh we are saving the world'. It will be, 'who's responsible for this, someone dropped the ball'.
It's political, our experimental NDP government will pay for this tax come election day, there's no way they will retain power.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I, in turn, agree with most of what you are saying too. However, I think it unlikely that erring on the side of caution by reducing consumption would have negative effects.

a reply to: D8Tee

Ah that makes sense thanks. What percentage of your grid is 'renewable'?

a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

Unlikely is a good word. I can agree with that.

TheRedneck

a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

What percentage of your grid is 'renewable'?

%
Nat Gas 44
Coal 39
Hydro 6
Wind 9
Biomass 3
other 1