Chaos. (Click to enlarge)


David Wojick of CFact just posted this essay on a newsgroup I frequent. It’s accessible, compelling and deserves wide distribution. It exposes a fatal flaw in the dangerous anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, namely: weather is chaotic and impossible to predict.

I used to lecture on the role of chaos theory in science. It does not get the attention it deserves in the climate debate. In fact climate change may be nothing more than simple chaos, in which case nothing controls it. Here is a brief explanation.

Chaos is a mathematical property. That is, certain equations, including very simple ones, can exhibit a complex form of behavior. They jump up and down in a random looking way. This is called a periodic oscillation. Chaos math was discovered by the great Poincare around 1910.

Chaos has a fascinating feature called extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. The slightest change to the numbers rapidly causes big changes in behavior. This is because an infinite number of behaviors is packed into a finite box of possibilities, called the strange attractor.

This raises the scientific question: do these equations describe anything in the physical world? Lorenz discovered the first such case in the weather, in the 1960s. He built a little computer model, basically of the interaction of highs and lows. It behaved strangely. The miracle was that Lorenz had read Poincare and recognized chaos.

He coined the term butterfly effect for the extreme sensitivity, although it is just a metaphor. Chaos has since been found in a great many different natural phenomena, making what is called nonlinear dynamics a major branch of science.

The butterfly effect makes a chaotic phenomenon unpredictable, even though it is still completely deterministic. This is because you can never know which of the possible behaviors you are seeing. In the weather, moving one molecule an inch can completely change the future and we can never know where all the molecules are. This practical limitation is called intrinsic unpredictability. It is universally ignored because there is no money in unpredictability.

Irregular oscillation is a glaring feature of most climate data, ranging from minute to minute out to very long term data over centuries. The chaos in weather is sufficient to explain this because chaotic phenomena exhibit what are called strange statistics. This means the long term averages also oscillate aperiodically. In a sense there is no such thing as average weather because different time periods give different numbers.

Given that climate is average weather, the chaos in weather is thus sufficient in principle to explain climate change. Climate change may just be strange weather statistics.

The climate modelers know all about this so they go to great lengths to keep large scale chaos out of their models. There is a lot of small wiggling but not enough to affect predictability. Or if that occurs they make a probabilistic argument that has no scientific validity. The butterfly effect is not probabilistic in the normal sense of that term. In fact average weather is a rare event, not the most likely.

That climate change is simply due to chaos I call the chaotic climate hypothesis. We never hear about it in the great climate debate.

Scientists dislike intrinsic unpredictability.

Happy to discuss.



Hits: 378

40 Thoughts on “Chaos

  1. Barry Brill on 16/09/2021 at 4:16 pm said:

    The UN IPCC has long advised that climate is chaotic:

    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”

    IPCC, Third Assessment Report, Chapter 14 “Advancing Our Understanding”

    • 1. The 20 year old report does say that in passing but the IPCC has never paid any attention to it. All of the CMIP modeling is by single model.
      2. There is no foundation in chaos theory for inferring probability distributions from model ensembles.
      3. The models do not exhibit chaos on the scale I am talking about. In fact they are equilibrium models while chaotic systems are by definition “far from equilibrium”.

  2. Barry Brill on 16/09/2021 at 4:42 pm said:

    Put simply, UN scientists say that long-term climate forecasting is like long term weather forecasting – impossible.

    However, they believe Bayesian methodology allows them to assess the relative probability of certain scenarios. They look for ‘probability distribution functions’ amongst countless model runs.

    This method is respectable, although highly debatable, provided the models have been validated. Alas, the IPCC models have failed all validation attempts.

    Notably, the IPCC scientists are unable to verify their “priors” – ie initial conditions. As David points out, all outcomes are extremely sensitive to priors – the ‘butterfly effect’. Because climate priors can never be known with certainty, climate futures are inherently unpredictable.

    The problems don’t stop there. Weather’s ‘strange statistics’ mean that long term averages oscillate aperiodically, so cannot be statistically averaged. As David says: “Average weather (ie climate) is a rare event”. Projection of past averages does not yield a likely future average.

    In a nutshell – the outputs of coupled climate models are exquisitely-calculated guesswork.

  3. Ian Smith on 17/09/2021 at 7:38 pm said:

    Weather is chaotic but it does have boundaries and climate is a statistical concept. The American Statistical Association backs the IPCC.

    It’s thermometers that show Earth is warming, and science and satellites explain why: more CO2 in the atmosphere.

    The RWNJ Morrison would rather build nuclear submarines than renewable energy plants. Australia is one of the worst offenders regarding GHG emissions, and since Australia is burning down I don’t think anyone will want to invade it.

    • Richard Treadgold on 17/09/2021 at 9:35 pm said:


      I understand that some scientists say warming occurs because of increased CO2, but I always ask for the evidence that proves it. It’s not enough to just say it. People say to me: “You’ve heard the evidence, you just don’t believe it.” But when I ask them what it is they go silent. So I’m asking you.

    • David Wojick on 21/09/2021 at 10:47 pm said:

      On the contrary, Ian, the satellite record shows all the warming for the last 40+ years is natural. It all occurs in two small steps due to super El Niño. The surface estimates are statistical junk.

      Of course average weather has boundaries. Chaos is a powerful form of stability, called the strange attractor. Where I love the temp can vary 30 degrees F in a day but not 150 in a thousand years. The price of this stability is unpredictability within the range and oscillating averages.

    • David Wojick on 22/09/2021 at 12:54 am said:

      Note that the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is itself a chaotic oscillation. So are the PDO, NAO and all the other named oscillations. We also have the alternating cold and warm periods on the scale of hundreds of years, the latest being the MWP and LIA. The climate models ignore all of this. In fact the IPCC AR6 SPM Figure 2 lists all the “drivers” of global change that the models use and all are human! Human causation is assumed. This is not science.

  4. Andrew on 18/09/2021 at 9:35 am said:

    More to the point Richard, where is the evidence that 8pppm of CO2 causes the climate to change. I believe that most scientists accept that man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is 2%. I am not sure how they arrive at that number but given that the majority of atmospheric CO2 is naturally produced it will be hard if not impossible to control nature – unless of course governments decide to control 9billion people and get them to reduce their CO2 emissions! I wouldn’t bet against it given they are trying to control ruminant emissions!

    So when people talk of “manmade climate change” I ask them to provide evidence that 8ppm is the cause. Bottom line is still, we will both be waiting for a long time for the evidence

    • Ian Smith on 18/09/2021 at 6:14 pm said:

      No, 100% scientists publishing in the field of climate science believe humanity has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere ~50%.

      About half our CO2 emissions:
      1, dissolve in the oceans (acidifying them), and
      2, enter the biosphere – but mostly weeds and scrub, not edible plants.

      The evidence for this is:
      1, knowing the amount of fossil fuel burnt, and
      2, the fact isotopes of C in fossil fuels have a different ratio.

    • David Wojick on 22/09/2021 at 7:30 am said:

      Natural CO2 emissions are about 20 times ours. Just a guess mind you because natural emissions are not measured. But almost all of this huge combined total is removed by what is called the CO2 flux. Roughly 25% of the atmospheric CO2 is absorbed every year.

      The annual rate of CO2 INCREASE, not emissions, is about half of our emissions. However this does not mean our emissions are causing the increase because that is a matter of all the natural increases and decreases, plus how the absorptions change, in the flux. Note that virtually all of our emitted molecules are gone in 6 years or so, which means the increase is not composed of our emissions, making causality impossible to determine without the necessary flux measurements.

      All the isotope data tells us is that our emissions are increasing which no one questions.

  5. Ian Smith on 18/09/2021 at 10:09 pm said:

    Richard Treadgold, hello. The evidence for you is exactly what is it for every other non-expert: the judgement of experts. That includes scientists who may be experts in other fields but not the relevant one. That includes people like William Happer and the late Freeman Dyson.

    The IPCC is regarded as the world authority, at least in providing the framework for the science if not the latest “cutting edge” science.

    That humanity’s GHG emissions are enhancing the GH effect and causing global warming is regarded as a fact. It’s not theoretically irrefutable but nobody has been successful in so doing, despite several attempts by people who have been shown to not know what they’re talking about.

    That leaves you in the same position as flat-earthers: it’s up to you to disprove the fact. Simply saying you can’t the evidence is like saying you can’t see a quark or conduct the Berlin Philharmonic. Irrelevant.

    I will add the oil companies no longer dispute the science, and are busy now fighting court cases – because they knew years ago and lied to keep selling their goods. Like the tobacco companies before them.

    So you’re really like Donald Duck when he has just stepped off the cliff – when reality impinges on your consciousness you will fall.

    • Esra Dral on 19/09/2021 at 1:50 pm said:

      Hi Ian,

      An interesting post. I am sure Richard will respond when he has time.
      You are quite correct, the UNIPCC is not a scientific body, it is a political organization. As with all political organizations it provides the terms of reference for all committees and all scientific work carried out on its behalf. This essentially means that the IPCC is there to support a political agenda and provides funding for anyone who wishes to carry out scientific research, but only within and only in support of the political frame work. This was quite simply stated when the IPCC was established. “All climate change is man made. Any natural change is merely variation.” All subsequent “scientific research” on behalf of the IPCC has supported this position, otherwise it would not have been funded. No evidence needed, no evidence provided.
      Just a quick question as you are clearly knowledgeable on all these things. If you go to This clearly states that the optimum average Earth surface temperature should be 15 degrees C. If you then go to this page states that NASA use the global average taken from 1951 to 1980 as their reference point. This temperature was averaged at 14 degrees C. However, we must also bear in mind that, in spite of rising CO2 levels over this time, there was a considerable cooling in the mid 1960’s through to the early 1970’s, so much so that scientists predicted a coming ice age. However, probably as a result of this cooling, this 30 year average temperature was 1 degree C below NASA’s stated optimum. It is therefore logical to assume that temperatures should rise back to the optimum, once this cooling event had passed. According to the same web page, our current temperature is 1 degree C above this 1951 to 1980 average, which puts us at 15 degrees C. This is NASA’s stated optimum, so we are currently sitting right in the climate sweet spot, according to NASA. It is therefore also logical to assume that if temperatures are below 15 c they would rise back to this optimum, as they have done over the last 140 years.
      So my question is: According to NASA the Earth’s temperature should be 15 c.
      According to NASA, the Earth’s current temperature IS 15 c.
      So where is the catastrophic man made global warming?
      Thanks for your time and I look forward to your answer.

    • David Wojick on 22/09/2021 at 7:50 am said:

      Ian, if you are referring to Happer’s recent CO2 saturation research, which I have studied and written about, he is certainly an expert. He determined that the warming potential of both CO2 and H2O molecules is down to a ten thousandth of their low concentration value. So not only cannot dangerous CO2 warming occur, neither can the supposed water vapor positive feedback. The emergency is physically impossible. There can be a bit more possible warming but not much. And even this modest possible warming is an abstraction, not a prediction.

  6. Andrew on 19/09/2021 at 9:28 am said:

    well Ian Smith, your credibility just took a nose dive if you really think only weeds & scrub absorb CO2 and not edible plants! One of the reasons crop production in green houses improves is because horticulturists increase the CO2% levels in their houses so more is available to be absorbed and therefore converted to plant nutrients. There is a very good reason why plants from the Amazon to pastures in Southland are green, I suggest you need a crash course on the “carbon cycle.”
    No, the oceans are not acidifying, go and read some very good work by Dr Jennifer Marohasy about the oceans and learn about life on about the coral reef, which is still very much alive despite the alarmists telling us it was dying. For your information the oceans are at a pH of between 7.9 – 8.2 which the last time i looked was still alkaline.

  7. Harry Cummings on 19/09/2021 at 3:29 pm said:


    Why do you go to a position of personal abuse toward Richard when he only asked you prove your point

    Why get so agro, whether you like it or not there are thousands of scientist (including climate scientists) in every corner of the world also question man made climate change and the IPCC

    Surely with so many failures, dozens of 10 years to go till we all die, 500 million climate refugees, hundreds of small Islands disappearing you are must be having some doubts. If you go back to the 1920/30 the weather then was exactly what we are experience now


  8. Esra Dral on 19/09/2021 at 4:30 pm said:

    Hi again Ian,

    Just a couple of points. The dissolution coefficient of CO2 in to sea water is 6.3 × 10 to the minus 5. Essentially that means most carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water stays as just that, carbon dioxide. Also note that if the oceans are warming due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then the oceans will hold less dissolved gas. You can’t have it both ways. In an experiment carried out by marine biologists, 3 salt water tanks were set up. Young crays were put in these tanks. Through one tank, air was passed through the water with 400 ppm carbon dioxide. In another, the air passed through the water was 2000 ppm. In the final tank, the air had 4000 ppm. Over 2 years, there was no measurable change in pH of the water in any of the tanks and the cray fish in the 4000 ppm tank where the biggest by quite some considerable margin. Their shells were bigger, thicker and stronger. The worst performers were the crayfish in the 400 ppm tank. Ocean pH change (not acidification, as the oceans are still alkaline and the buffers are more than capable of dealing with challenges from carbon dioxide) is more likely from land run off and other industrial pollution. If the focus is only on carbon dioxide then we will kill the oceans through not addressing the real problems. Carbon dioxide is necessary for shell fish health as they use it to build their shells. If the oceans are warming, then there will be less dissolved carbon dioxide and this will definitely adversely affect the health of shell fish. That is the real problem. As for the famed experiment showing thinning of the shells, that was a cheat, because rather than trying to acidify the water with carbon dioxide, the experimenters used hydrochloric acid, so what did they expect.

    • David Wojick on 22/09/2021 at 2:22 am said:

      Perturbing a chaotic system is harmless as such, Simon. But it is likely to have little effect because chaos is a powerful form of stability.

      Richard, the message is more than unpredictability. The changes we see look to be natural chaotic oscillations, driven by constant solar input. If so then humans are not causing anything.

  9. Ian Smith on 19/09/2021 at 6:28 pm said:

    Of course the IPCC is a scientific body – the reports are produced by scientists who proven expertise in the field . Certainly the reports are signed off – line by line – by governments. That adds to their credibility and explains why every government on the planet accepts the conclusion: we need to reduce GHG emissions.

    And no, thousands of scientists with expertise in climate science NO NOT REJECT the science or the conclusions of the IPCC.

    The only people who dismiss the IPCC don’t know what they’re talking about. If they did they would hailed as geniuses not dismissed as fools and cranks.

    In the same category as doctors who talk nonsense about Covid-19 and engineers who do likewise about the World Trade Centre collapse.

    • Andrew on 19/09/2021 at 7:00 pm said:

      Yes – scientists like Dr David Bellamy who described alleged manmade global warming as “poppycock” and was subsequently ostracised by the BBC.

      I suppose you consider Climatologist, Dr Tim Ball as not knowing what he was talking about given he exposed the IPCC cheat Michael Mann for falsifying data to make up the “hockey stick” graph?

      …..and we had better not talk about the rest of the cheating IPCC scientists that were exposed in the Climategate scandal eh Ian??

    • Rickoshay on 20/09/2021 at 12:31 pm said:

      Brainwashed much?

    • David Wojick on 22/09/2021 at 2:28 am said:

      Ian, the IPCC members are national governments, hence the IP. They recruit alarmist scientists to write the reports.

      Figure 1a of AR6 SPM says there has been no natural temp change for 2000 years. Figure 1b says there has been no natural change in the last 150 years, so all change is human caused (which is how the models are programmed). These are ridiculous claims that certify the IPCC as alarmist, not scientific.

  10. Esra Dral on 19/09/2021 at 8:25 pm said:

    Hi Andrew,

    Not forgetting the Maldives would be completely under water by 2018, New York’s East Coast Highway is under water, not, the Arctic was ice free in summer by 2004, oops sorry, 2007, oops sorry, 2013, oops sorry, 2014, oops, sorry, 2015. Manhattan completely underwater by 2015. Snowfall is now officially a thing of the past.
    ‘Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth.
    Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”
    Michael Mann’s team on why they would not provide data to the court to support his law suit against Dr Tim Ball – We are not gong to provide the data behind the hockey stick graph. If we do, you will only use it to prove us wrong.

  11. Esra Dral on 20/09/2021 at 7:23 am said:

    Hi Ian Smith,
    Just as a quick aside, paper published 17th September 2021, F. Lhardy et al. During the last glacial maximum, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were up to 331 ppm, around the same as in the 1950’s. So, if carbon dioxide is the planet’s thermostat, how come it was in an ice age with carbon dioxide levels higher than those pre the industrial revolution? If carbon dioxide is the planet’s thermostat, how can the planet have a temperate climate at around 300 to 310 ppm in the 1950’s and yet be in an ice age at between 315 and 331 ppm. Also, Zhu et al (2021) research has shown the Antarctic has cooled significantly over the past 40 years, east Antarctica by 2.8 degrees c and the west by 1.68 degrees c. But hey, if you want to keep taking the blue pill, please feel free to carry on. Me, I took the red pill quite a few years ago.

  12. Simon on 20/09/2021 at 11:49 am said:

    Perturbing the inputs of a chaotic system is probably a silly thing to do. There are a number of relative stable equilibriums and perturbation though manipulation of greenhouse gases will push us towards a new equilibrium. The wide range in potential equilibrium climate sensitivities to doubling of CO₂ (a range of 2.5°C to 4°C, with a best estimate of 3°C) is clear indication of a chaotic system.

    • Richard Treadgold on 20/09/2021 at 12:07 pm said:


      No argument that weather is chaotic, agree with you there. The message becomes that we cannot predict the weather so we ought to forget about fixing it. We don’t know what will happen, so if we labour to produce the opposite, we’ll frequently get it wrong. It’s all a gigantic waste of time and resources. It’s been chaotic for 500 billion years and it’s always perfect.

      I’m curious why you caution against perturbation then recommend perturbation to push us towards a new equilibrium.

    • David Wojick on 22/09/2021 at 2:47 am said:

      (Posted above by mistake) Perturbing a chaotic system is harmless as such, Simon. But it is likely to have little effect because chaos is a powerful form of stability.

      Richard, the message is more than unpredictability. The changes we see look to be natural chaotic oscillations, driven by constant solar input. If so then humans are not causing anything.

  13. Rickoshay on 20/09/2021 at 12:28 pm said:
    The world’s most costly scientific error is the false belief that human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2. The truth is that nature causes most of the increase. The truth changes everything they have told you about climate change.
    The lies are being exposed, The narratives are falling apart, T he people are marching, The drums are beating, change is coming…
    “I love the smell of Napalm in the morning”
    Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore

  14. David Wojick on 22/09/2021 at 12:46 am said:

    Notice that Ian has hijacked my thread with standard alarmist arguments that have nothing to do with my post. All the subsequent comments are responding to his general AGW claims which are far to broad to be usefully debated. Nothing on the chaotic climate hypothesis. An effective diversion which I often see.

  15. Ian Smith on 22/09/2021 at 1:03 am said:

    Esra Dral: “So, if carbon dioxide is the planet’s thermostat, how come it was in an ice age with carbon dioxide levels higher than those pre the industrial revolution?”

    Where did I say CO2 was the planet’s thermostat?

    I said CO2 controls Earth’s temperature — even to bringing it out of an ice age — but that’s for any given insolation. You’ve heard of Malankovitcgh cycles I expect…

    Even the temperature control on a stove or fridge depends on the energy in. You kind of know that I expect, just any system with more than one variable is too complex for you and your personality prohibits your accepting normal/standard/orthodox/textbook science.

    There are other factors too, of course, like aerosols – eg volcanoes – and temperatures will rise as we reduce certain pollutants in the atmosphere.

    The rest of your comment — too much wrong to answer. The pH of the oceans is dropping.

    Richard Treadgold. Why don’t you buy yourself a book for Christmas:
    Principles of Planetary Climate; Raymond Pierrehumbert


    Since you claim the problem is a lack of evidence and not your inability to grasp it.

    • Esra Dral on 22/09/2021 at 7:43 am said:

      Hi Ian,

      The recent paper, peer reviewed and published in:
      Earth-Science Reviews Volume 215, April 2021, 103546. Evolution of paleo-climate and seawater pH from the late Permian to postindustrial periods recorded by boron isotopes and B/Ca in biogenic carbonates.

      Oceans were more “more acidic”, i.e. less alkaline, in the 1730’s, pre the industrial revolution, and in the 1930’s and 1940’s than today.
      Seawater pH in the South China sea varies seasonally, from 8.1 in winter to 7.6 in summer. So, within a span of months, the ocean pH varies far more than it allegedly has due to human activity over centuries.

    • Richard Treadgold on 22/09/2021 at 8:13 am said:


      Check your email address. This comment went to moderation, probably because the address was different. Cheers.

  16. David Wojick on 22/09/2021 at 4:42 am said:

    Having mentioned the stability of chaos several times here is a quick explanation using a one dimensional system. What causes chaos is a parameter that wants to grow and a nonlinear negative feedback. As the parameter grows the feedback grows faster, ultimately stopping then reversing the growth. So the parameter oscillates up and down, endlessly and aperiodically. It does this within certain bounds, called the strange attractor. The bounds can be very stable. The logistic equation is a good example.

    The big point is that all this ongoing change has no variable cause in the sense of a forcing on the system. It is just the parameter struggling with its internal negative feedback. In the climate case everyone is looking for a variable forcing but if the oscillations are chaotic then constant solar input is sufficient.

    • Juglans nigra on 26/09/2021 at 10:56 am said:

      ” then constant solar input is sufficient.”
      Um, David:
      What happens when the solar input is not constant ?
      Just more chaos, I guess, at the scale of Dalton and Milankovich cycles ?
      Having occasionally watched a spinning-top / gyroscope with friction , There frequently are a set of apparently self-correcting wobbles near to the final death-roll.
      The tricky bit is whether to extrapolate this behavior to explain a planetary or cosmic observation; or have the arrogance to presume that humanity was the cause of the observed wobble.
      Perhaps the Sun is just one less wobble away from going super-nova. Or was it to be a red dwarf ?
      We could be toast either way.
      Marshmallows at my place, anyone a starter?
      the walnutter.

  17. Rick on 01/10/2021 at 10:57 am said:

    Thanks for an interesting article, David.

    I can see, from the data-records that are available to us, that Earth’s climate system appears to be intrinsically ‘chaotic’ as you suggest and I acknowledge that it must contain some ‘chaos’ in the form of entropy as all physical systems in our space-time universe are thought to do. However, in order to hold together as an integral, whole system sustainably, I think it must also contain some intrinsic order as well; otherwise the system’s intrinsic chaos/entropy would eventually bring about its total disintegration.

    ‘Sustainable’ systems are able to maintain a viable balance between these two fundamental principles. If the system in question is a static one, such as a rock, say, the chaos-principle will predominate from the moment of its creation and it will suffer erosion and decay under the law of increasing entropy until its constituent particles have been completely dispersed and absorbed back into its environment.

    Although a rock may last for a long time, that is not what is usually meant by a ‘sustainable’ system, of course. Only if the system is a dynamic, ‘open’ one, in which matter and energy are flowing into and out of it continuously, can it be truly ‘sustainable’ because in order to maintain equilibrium it must be continuously eliminating the chaos/entropy that the pre-existing chaos/entropy inside it is generating spontaneously. (Chaos begets more chaos, as it is said.)

    Not only that, but the system must also be self-regulating. That is to say, it must not eliminate its intrinsic chaos/entropy at too fast a rate or it may fix itself into a pattern that is too stable and rigid for its components to function optimally; but on the other hand, it must not eliminate its chaos/entropy too slowly either, or it may become overwhelmed by it and start to disintegrate. So there are natural limits within which the system must remain and which it cannot overshoot without incurring injury in some way. Therefore, it must be self-regulating to stay within those limits and not drift outside them.

    Earth’s natural climate system has been maintained in such a balanced, chaos/entropy-eliminating way for billions of years and the means and methods by which the planet has done this are still largely mysterious to us as yet. But now the question arises as to whether the amount of chaos/entropy in the climate system is currently increasing or decreasing. If it is decreasing then so is the amount of turbulence in the system and we might say that it is ‘settling down’ or ‘stabilising’, which no doubt would come as good news to most people: it would mean fewer ‘extreme weather events’ occurring and generally more-predictable climatic conditions on the global scale. But if the amount of chaos/entropy in the system is increasing, then that could be bad news because it would mean the opposite: i.e. more climatic turbulence with all the grief which that implies.

    As it happens, it is possible to measure the quantity of chaos/entropy in Earth’s climate system – in principle, at least – and to see whether it is increasing, decreasing or staying constant over specific time-intervals. We can do this by measuring the chaotic variability in the global climate records (i.e. global mean temperature, global mean wind-speed, etc.) over specific time-periods of interest and comparing them.

    It is true that this method only works if the records are reasonably accurate and the accuracy of most of our existing climate records is highly debatable. However, to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence at all of any statistically significant increase or decrease in the chaotic variability of any of the current climate records on decadal or centennial timescales.

    Especially, there appears to be no such statistical evidence whatsoever to support alarmist claims that we are in the midst of a global climate emergency, or that the world will soon find itself in one if humanity does not reign-in its GHG-emissions by some arbitrary amount by 2050 or whenever.

    Chaos/entropy is a huge subject that seems to have major implications for all kinds of systems, including social systems as well as climatic ones. But this post is long enough already, so I’ll leave it here for now.

  18. Esra Dral on 17/11/2021 at 8:13 am said:

    Good day everyone. My apologies if this message is a repeat of what someone else has already seen in the temperature records, but it’s relatively new to me. For the first time in quite a few weeks, I had some time for myself this weekend. My work during the pandemic has been pretty manic. I downloaded NASA’s satellite temperature data from December 1978 through to October 2021. I put the trend line on to the resultant graph and it clearly showed progressive warming over this whole period spanning almost 43 years. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising all this time and so, if it is causing the planet to warm, you would expect these 2 values to rise in lockstep with each other. This is one of the strong correlations cited by the climate terrorists as proof of man made climate change. However, removing the trend line and looking at the graph on is own with no other clutter, it started to look very much like something else is going on here. If we look at the temperatures from December 1978 through to September 1987, a period of almost 9 years, the actual temperature trend is slightly downwards. No warming at all. There is then a temperature spike, followed by a period of 9 years and 9 months of no further warming. Again, this period is also followed by another spike. Then, from August 1997 through to December 2015, a period of 18 years, again, there is no further warming at all. The trend line is about as flat as yer average climate alarmist’s EEG. The final spike comes with the El Nino event that culminated in the February 2016 record temperature. From there, the trend has been downwards.
    The overall temperature trend is upwards. There is no denying this. However, whilst the trend line over the 40+ year period appears to show the gradual rise you would expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperatures, this turns out to be very misleading. The actual warming is not linear at all. It consists of long periods of no warming, or even slight cooling, followed by a temperature spike. It is a distinct step profile. This is definitely not consistent with the proposed carbon dioxide mechanism and highly indicative of individual events driving these temperatures. So, the real climate question becomes – What is actually causing this? What individual and apparently randomly timed events are adding significant and fast acting heat loads to the planet? It certainly ain’t carbon dioxide. Thoughts anyone?

  19. Rickoshay on 22/11/2021 at 2:28 pm said:

    Esra do the hot spikes match sunspot peaks or solar cycle max? also large flare events add instant heat energy via g.e.c

  20. theotherross on 24/11/2021 at 4:12 am said:

    Interesting articles today on WUWT re sun/solar activity.

  21. Esra Dral on 24/11/2021 at 7:22 pm said:

    Hi Rickoshay,

    I am not 100% sure yet. There are a number of possible factors. As you suggest, I will need to look a the solar cycles, flares etc. Yesterday I was told that it could be a result of changes to the Barycentre of the solar system. As this changes, it can put significant gravitational stress on the Earth’s crust. Apparently there is a junction point under the Pacific that can open up under certain gravitational conditions and this allows significant amounts of magma up through the gaps between the plates. This Pacific plate convergence is probably not be the only point on the sea bed where this may happen. This may also help to explain the temperature spike and then the long tail as the thermal profile of the sea water means a much slower heat release in comparison to the atmosphere.

    Looking at the trend lines

    December 1978 to November 1987 – a fall of 0.01 degrees C
    The jump is then 0.12 degrees C
    December 1987 to October 1997 – no change. A flat line for almost 10 years
    The jump is then 0.19 degrees C
    November 1997 to January 2016 – no change. A flat line for just over 18 years
    The jump is then 0.3 degrees C
    February 2016 to October 2021 – a fall of 0.06 degrees C

    Thanks to theotherross for the WUWT reference. Anyhow, it may all add together. It will be interesting come August 2024. At this point, the Barycentre of the solar system will be around 500,000 kms away from the surface of the Sun. Every planet in the solar system, with the exception of Mercury, will be around one side of the Sun and the Barycentre position is heavily influenced by the major planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. It will probably be very interesting.

  22. Esra Dral on 25/11/2021 at 8:23 am said:

    Just as a side note, and a correction. Most of the 0.3 c jump in trend line in February 2016 was probably due to the very strong El Nino. The actual temperature drop from February 2016 through to October 2021 is 0.33 c. The trend line is falling by 0.06 c . A bit of a difference there. This actual temperature drop since February 2016 does indicate a different mechanism at play.

Leave a Reply to Esra Dral Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation