Controlling the weather

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem with trying to apply chaos theory to the real world in the macro scale is the number of contributing factors that go into the primary characteristic of a chaos equation: Sensitive Depedence on Initial Conditions. SDIC for a real-world situation that might have literally thousands of possible initial contributor conditions is more than we can handle with our current understanding of weather.

I looked at studies that analyzed old air trapped in ICE and the conclusion was that there was a steady increase of CO2 that started with the industrial revolution.

Cause or effect? That, you CANNOT answer... you can only opine.

 

[jpl458]

The problem with trying to apply chaos theory to the real world in the macro scale is the number of contributing factors that go into the primary characteristic of a chaos equation: Sensitive Depedence on Initial Conditions. SDIC for a real-world situation that might have literally thousands of possible initial contributor conditions is more than we can handle with our current understanding of weather.


Cause or effect? That, you CANNOT answer... you can only opine.

In order for chaos theory to determine anything you first have to know the values that make up the starting point. So to use use chaos theory to predict or control weather you would have to have millions of data points from everywhere on the planet. Knowing the original conditions is key. Doc, we agree.

 

[moke123]

I'm not sure why MTG's statement that people can control the weather is so shocking to people.

Because she implied that the hurricane was directed at red areas and skirting the blue ones.

 

[jpl458]

Because she implied that the hurricane was directed at red areas and skirting the blue ones.

There was nothing implicit in her statement.

 

[Pat Hartman]

At first global warming was deemed a hoax (Bush 41, Trump, DeSantis et al.) Now it's deemed a natural cycle, and there is nothing we can do to avert whats in the future.

"Global warming" was what the crazies called "climate change" before the tide turned and the average temperature started falling for a while. No one who remembers the science they learned in the 6th grade would ever tell you that the climate doesn't change. The climate is a perpetual motion machine. It is influenced by many different factors including the Sun and sun spots - over which we have NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER. The ENTIRE issue is whether and how much of the change might be caused by the actions of humans.

I'm going to repeat an example I posted a while ago. It is about statistics and sampling. Connecticut is a very blue state. However, some of the towns in the Northeast lean Republican. So, if you chose one of those towns as your sample for Connecticut, the data would tell you that Connecticut leans Republican. When we do political polling, we try to not skew our sample so that we can get an accurate picture. But, most of our climate history comes from ice cores. Some comes from fossilized plant life. Different types of plants grow in different climatic conditions. The thing about the ice cores is we have only around 300,000 years worth of history because prior to that, the planet had no polar ice caps. We were in a warm period as far as climate goes. (please ignore). So, the effect is the same as we have when we limit our sample to a small town in Northeastern Connecticut. We have a non-representative sample. This is the epitome of the GIGO principle. The history of the planet goes back 4.5 BILLION years. Let's just discard the first 3.5 billion years of planet history. Assuming the "climate" stabilized a billion years ago, then 300,000 is the equivalent of 2.5 hours out of an entire year AND those 2.5 hours were continuous rather than a random sample over the entire period of time. So you are basing your entire argument on the weather pattern from 3 PM to 5:30 PM yesterday. Pretty bad for the folks in Florida but a gorgeous fall day in Connecticut.

Do you see where this argument is going? You can think that humans are so important that they must be a very large influence but you have no empirical proof that humans are causing a problem, aside from pollution. We do not even have a sufficiently valid set of data that we can even say what "earth normal" is let alone calculate how much of an influence people have on the climate change that is proceeding with or without us.

So, concentrate on what we can control which is pollution. Everyone can get on board with that. No one wants to drink polluted water or look up at icky green sky's or watch a river burn. No one wants to run out of oil. Burning fossil fuel is a waste. We need the oil for things for things for which there is no substitute. But the people who want to ban fossil fuel also want to ban nuclear energy which is downright idiotic. Nuclear power is the immediate answer to the problem. We have the technology. We simply need to stop arguing about it. EV's are not the solution, they are simply a different problem. Hybrids are a much more rational and obtainable "solution". Pick the right battle and there will be no fight at all. We will all march together.

 

[Pat Hartman]

AND of that 300,000 years, humans have only been spewing "excessive" amounts of carbon into the atmosphere for about 100 years. That reduces our effective sample to less than 30 seconds.

 

[jpl458]

AND of that 300,000 years, humans have only been spewing "excessive" amounts of carbon into the atmosphere for about 100 years. That reduces our effective sample to less than 30 seconds.

So you are saying that mans contribution to warming is pretty much nil.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So you are saying that mans contribution to warming is pretty much nil.

What I'm saying is that no rational person would make a decision like this based on a sample of less than 30 continuous seconds of elapsed time. Science evolves. Each new thing we learn can destroy all previous knowledge or put us one step closer to understanding a complex system. Thinking that humans cause weather (we do but very locally) is bad. Thinking that humans cause climate change is simply not based on fact. Science is all about empirical evidence. Just because b happens after a doesn't mean that a caused b, especially when you only have one instance of a and one of b. You have no way to identify a solid pattern.

Thinking that humans cause climate change and can therefore change behavior to cause climate change to reverse is simply hubris. WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG? What if some small increase in atmospheric CO2 will actually benefit mankind? We know logically that it can increase the temperate zone for crop growing. We can see in recent history the deleterious effects of the mini-ice age we are still on the upside from. The starvation and crop failures that plagued Europe during the dark ages are well documented. Do you want to go back to that? What if that is what will happen if we meddle with Mother Nature? Are you so absolutely sure that your "solution" will not end that way? You won't be around to suffer the consequences but your grandchildren will.

Humans causing weather. This is a local phenomenon. For years we have recognized that dense population clusters that occur in cities with high-rises result in locally higher temperatures. We also know that the buildings interfere with natural wind flow and can cause locally high winds. We also know enough that if we chose to, we could take steps to mitigate the ill effects. For example, we can paint the roof tops white in sumer to reflect heat and black in winter to absorb heat. We can also build new buildings to support heavier roofs and top them with grass and trees. This provides nice recreational space up in the clean air away from traffic and noise and minimizes heat gain. It can also trap and channel rain water which would result in another benefit. This doesn't change the world but it sure makes a more pleasant environment for residents. You can also see something interesting using Google Earth. The south of Spain is very dry. Farmers have started growing crops under gauze to better control evaporation and sunlight. You can see these fields from space. Your first thought will be that you are seeing snow but what you are seeing is covered fields. Acres of them, miles of them. The practice has grown to the point where it seems to affect the ambient humidity. I couldn't find any good pictures. But here's a link to describe the concept.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304423824004837 I found examples on a smaller scale in Tenerife.

 

[moke123]

We know logically that it can increase the temperate zone for crop growing.

We also know that it can cause droughts like we have been experiencing for some years.

The Worst Drought Ever: Why Spain’s Water Crisis is a Wake-up Call for Climate Change

Photo via Reuters.com *** Most of Spain’s weather consists of sunny skies, few clouds, and warm temperatures. But the weather is not as perfect as it seems. Water throughout the country is be…

fordhampoliticalreview.org

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Some parts of the North African desert now have lakes due to climate-change rainfall. It's an ill wind that blows NOBODY any good.

 

[Isaac]

At best cloud seeding is tenuous, and only partially effective. When chaos theory came along there was a notion of the Butteryfly Effect, which stated that a butterfly flappit's wings in China would have an effect on the weather in New York. And soon aafter that statement a notable scientist Jumped all over it with weather conrol as his objective. But weather was and is a chaotic system. Here is a note about research in Japan. But remember that it's a computer simulation.

Researchers have used computer simulations to show that small adjustments to weather variables could potentially modify weather phenomena. For example, Japanese scientists used a butterfly attractor to show how small changes could prevent extreme events. The operative words are potentially and prevent. But for some one to say that a hurricane can be created by man, and control its direction and intensity is pure folly. There is a big difference between making it rain and creating storms that are controlled.

Chaos theory is tantilizing, but so far it only works in computer simulations with regard to weaather.

Read up on Strange attractors, and the Lorenz Attractor. Here is a picture of a Lorenz attractor the was generated by using the output od a differential equation as input to the same equation. Also read about Mitch Feinberg the assumed father of chaos theory. Mandelbrot sets are also interesting.

View attachment 116432 View attachment 116433

I'm not talking about chaos theory, I'm talking about weather modifications, and how it's not necessarily stupid to suggest it, as you suggested.
On tha uther hand, at leest yu ar no longur dooing tha drunc possts. Thatt's proggress!

 

[Isaac]

Because she implied that the hurricane was directed at red areas and skirting the blue ones.

It's more people's suspicions that FEMA aid has been so done.

 

[Steve R.]

@jpl458: Tell me, what is the correct temperature of the Earth?

• If you are viewing this from the perspective of the Earth, there should be no concern over whether the Earth is getting warmer or colder. The ecology of the Earth will adapt. That adaption has been going on since life began on the Earth.
• It appears that you are viewing the cause and solution to global warming as anthropocentric. From the environmental perspective that is nearsighted, not to also mention an abuse of the environmentalism. Those attempting to hamper global warming are actually being destructive to the environment in that they are modifying the environment to make it artificially "livable" for the sole benefit of humans.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Climate change be like...

 

[jpl458]

What I'm saying is that no rational person would make a decision like this based on a sample of less than 30 continuous seconds of elapsed time. Science evolves. Each new thing we learn can destroy all previous knowledge or put us one step closer to understanding a complex system. Thinking that humans cause weather (we do but very locally) is bad. Thinking that humans cause climate change is simply not based on fact. Science is all about empirical evidence. Just because b happens after a doesn't mean that a caused b, especially when you only have one instance of a and one of b. You have no way to identify a solid pattern.

Thinking that humans cause climate change and can therefore change behavior to cause climate change to reverse is simply hubris. WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG? What if some small increase in atmospheric CO2 will actually benefit mankind? We know logically that it can increase the temperate zone for crop growing. We can see in recent history the deleterious effects of the mini-ice age we are still on the upside from. The starvation and crop failures that plagued Europe during the dark ages are well documented. Do you want to go back to that? What if that is what will happen if we meddle with Mother Nature? Are you so absolutely sure that your "solution" will not end that way? You won't be around to suffer the consequences but your grandchildren will.

Humans causing weather. This is a local phenomenon. For years we have recognized that dense population clusters that occur in cities with high-rises result in locally higher temperatures. We also know that the buildings interfere with natural wind flow and can cause locally high winds. We also know enough that if we chose to, we could take steps to mitigate the ill effects. For example, we can paint the roof tops white in sumer to reflect heat and black in winter to absorb heat. We can also build new buildings to support heavier roofs and top them with grass and trees. This provides nice recreational space up in the clean air away from traffic and noise and minimizes heat gain. It can also trap and channel rain water which would result in another benefit. This doesn't change the world but it sure makes a more pleasant environment for residents. You can also see something interesting using Google Earth. The south of Spain is very dry. Farmers have started growing crops under gauze to better control evaporation and sunlight. You can see these fields from space. Your first thought will be that you are seeing snow but what you are seeing is covered fields. Acres of them, miles of them. The practice has grown to the point where it seems to affect the ambient humidity. I couldn't find any good pictures. But here's a link to describe the concept.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304423824004837 I found examples on a smaller scale in Tenerife.
View attachment 116438

Pat, why is it that when I ask a simple question you respond with 2,000 or so words of response. You made a statement that highrise buildings interfere with wind flow. Lookup gradiant wind level.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Pat, why is it that when I ask a simple question you respond with 2,000 or so words of response.

Please feel free to ignore me. I tried very hard to give you a rational explaination for why you should not just buy into the climate hoax. Because it is a hoax. There is no empirical evidence that man is the proximate cause for climate change. To believe that, you would have to erase all knowledge you have of science and the scientific method. You need to ignore everything you ever learned about statistics and creating a proper sample.

You made a statement that highrise buildings interfere with wind flow. Lookup gradiant wind level.

Guess you've never walked the streets of a city as the wind is being funneled down the roadways and alleys.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Here's a clip of the ex-CIA director John Brennan talking about ways to manipulate the climate. You might remember Brennan as a signatory on the NOW infamous and debunked Russia, Russia, Russia hoax and frame up of DJT.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1844231073187975359

 

[jpl458]

Please feel free to ignore me. I tried very hard to give you a rational explaination for why you should not just buy into the climate hoax. Because it is a hoax. There is no empirical evidence that man is the proximate cause for climate change. To believe that, you would have to erase all knowledge you have of science and the scientific method. You need to ignore everything you ever learned about statistics and creating a proper sample.


Guess you've never walked the streets of a city as the wind is being funneled down the roadways and alleys.

I have experienced that in several large citys, but it has nothing to do with the weather or climate. The gradient wind level is 2,000 feet obove the topography. I never said that man was the only reason for global heating, but man is a factor.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I never said that man was the only reason for global heating

Then we actually aren't so far apart. I think in part our differences are "degree" vs. "kind" because I can imagine SOME intrusion of Man into SOME weather phenomena. Just not very much.

I may have said this before but it is worth repeating. If Man has done anything that is seriously bad, it is to POLLUTE our planet with poisonous waste products. Long-term AND short-term poisons abound. Let me put it this way - if we were to clean up the pollution that Man has pumped into our environment and it HAPPENS to improve climate issues, I won't shed a tear over being shown to have been wrong about climate change. Even if we somehow reduce the CO2 and methane significantly, neither of those is an actual poison. As long as the air retains about 20% oxygen level, we will still breath OK. But my concern is the real poisons we have emitted. Even if we reduce the greenhouse gases, the poisons will linger. And that concerns me greatly.

 

[Pat Hartman]

but it has nothing to do with the weather or climate.

It is a human perception and even you experience it. It is a very localized phenomenon. And in a planned city, could be avoided or at least minimized by simply recognizing the direction of the prevailing winds and not creating funnels to enhance their strength.