Chaos Theory and Global Warming

The basic idea of chaos theory, now called complexity
science, is this as I understand it; a self organized system
stands persistantly poised between two distinctly and
dramatically different states.

And a minor change in initial conditions, as visualized
by the butterfly effect, can push the system into one
or the other distinctly different behaviors.
Often in an entirely random or sudden fashion.

A way of imagining this effect is to visualize water
that has been heated just to the point of becoming
vapor, but not quite. Holding the temperature at
that..very narrow.. temperature range would lead to
a system that acts as a self organized system.
Where even a tiny change in temperature leads
the system into one, or the other, dramatically
different states, either water or vapor.

The climate of the earth is thought to behave in
such a way. The transition from ice ages to
interglacial warming periods is considered to
be such a chaotic system. Where a tiny change
can have a dramatic effect, either an ice age or
interglacial.

Chaos in the Atmosphere
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm#M_33_


The point is simply that we cannot assume any kind
of direct or linear relationships between man made
introductions of greenhouse gasses and the resulting
change of our climate. The seemingly endless war
over charts and figures for and against climate change
can't get us the answers we want I believe.

We need a more abstract approach.

My personal experience in watching chaotic system behavior
comes in the form of observing the behavior of countless
stock charts. Which are not simulations btw, but actual
real world chaotic systems in motion. With all the hard work
already done in all kinds of charts and graphs laid
out with in every form imaginable.

What I've noticed in several years of watching real world
chaos is this. When a system is being pushed far from
equilibrium and is approaching the breaking or 'tipping' point
between its two distinct possible behaviors as in the water
analogy. Something rather wonderful happens. Near the
edge of chaos, near the breaking point, the system will display
its two distinctly different forms of behavior.

These are called pre-images.

Towards an Edge Methodology for Complex Systems
Simulation
http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm

These two images are in fact the ..only two..possible future
states the system can fall back into once it's become poised
at the edge.

Just like when water is just at the point of becoming
vapor, it's two pre-images would simply be water or vapor.
When at the transition point, the sytem can can't really remain
very long there and must fall back into one or the states.

So, for me to correctly predict the future of that particular
stock means doing three things. First, to find a stock chart
that is near an edge state. To identify the two pre-images
and predict which one will become reality. Then place my
bet accordingly.

The two pre-images always have the same qualitative character.
One will return mostly to the previous equilibrium state.
Much like gently pulling a stiff spring, it returns to it's
previous state. This is a static pre-image. At least that's
what I call them.

The other pre-image is a called chaotic. As the future
behavior becomes wildly unpredictible for a short time.
Then typically falls into a completely new equilibrium state
called ..eh hum..bancruptcy.

Static pre-images predicts a gentle return to normal.
Chaotic pre-images generally predict disaster.

Obviously, from a climate perspective, we would prefer
the future described by the static pre-image.

The question for me is in figuring out how to tell, once
at the edge, which of the two pre-images would in fact
happen? What I've found is that there is a simple and
reliable way of determining which future will occur.

The marker is in the ..character.. of the force that is driving
the system to the edge, what kind of force produced the two
pre-images. The important clue is whether the force driving
the system to the edge is ...internal...or external..to the
system.

In the stock market this is easy to determine. If the push
from equilibrium was caused by, say, a bad quarterly report
or failed new product, that certainly is an internal force for
change. If some unjustified rumor, or the like, caused the
change, that force is external.

Internal change driving a system to the edge almost always
leads to a chaotic pre-image and calamity.

External change driving a system to the edge almost always
leads to a gentle return near the previous equilibrium.

So of course a chaos based stock trading strategy takes the
form of looking for a stock that some rumor-like event has driven
the price way down, or up, doesn't really matter. Then wait for
the bifurcations (universal behavior) to show itself, then
buy or short as the situation warrants. As the rumor or panic
driven change is bound to dissipate and return near the
previous (pre-transient) state.

Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm

So, for climate change what does this mean?

We must first characterize what constitutes an internal or external
force for our biosphere.

It may seem that forces for change such as solar variation or
orbital changes would be external forces. But a change in
solar radiation, for instance, has the property of effecting
virtually every climate variable on earth simultaneously.
Which, by the magnitude of its effect, becomes an internal force.
Much like a change in sales figures for a primary product.
It effects everything at once and strongly.

It may seem that greenhouse gasses are an internal force for
change. But the products of life on earth are highly varied.
They come in many competing forms of which greenhouse
gasses would be only one. Even if it's the largest effect of
life, the fact we subjectively pick that one as determitive
leads us to over react disproportionately to changes
in that variable. So our response to greenhouse gasses
acts as a rumor. The products of life, imho, behave as
external forces.

In conclusion, I believe changes to our biosphere as a result of
living processes will result in a static pre-image. Where the
overall change is significant but not disastrous. And observation
supports this as life is denoted by countless self correcting
mechanisms that find a way of thriving off of, and mitigating
change into improving our overall fitness.

I believe the calamity for the human race would lie in our
response to global warming. Some believe we could someday
control climae change by for instance controllong solar input.

Now that would lead to a catastrophe imho.

Any response to global warming must be in the form
of changing the system of life on earth. Changing or
improving our societal structures to a more stable form.

Ultimately, I believe, democracy and freedom are the
answers to global warming. Not in the sense of returning
our climate as it was, but settling on a warmer but
more stable equilibrium.

Global warming is coming, it's going to cause massive
changes and hardships during the transition to the new
equilibrium. But in the long term, the changes will benefit
humanity.

As an end to the 'boom and bust' ice-age cycle is upon us.
We live in an unprecidented period of climate history!
Imho.


Thanks for reading


Jonathan

s

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

The basic idea of chaos theory, now called complexity
science, is this as I understand it; a self organized system
stands persistantly poised between two distinctly and
dramatically different states.

And a minor change in initial conditions, as visualized
by the butterfly effect, can push the system into one
or the other distinctly different behaviors.
Often in an entirely random or sudden fashion.

A way of imagining this effect is to visualize water
that has been heated just to the point of becoming
vapor, but not quite. Holding the temperature at
that..very narrow.. temperature range would lead to
a system that acts as a self organized system.
Where even a tiny change in temperature leads
the system into one, or the other, dramatically
different states, either water or vapor.

The climate of the earth is thought to behave in
such a way. The transition from ice ages to
interglacial warming periods is considered to
be such a chaotic system. Where a tiny change
can have a dramatic effect, either an ice age or
interglacial.

Chaos in the Atmosphere
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm#M_33_

Gambling is a chaotic activity, yet in the long run, the casino wins. The
weather in Detroit on Oct 12 of each year is chaotic, yet the overall
averages are less chaotic. In the case of man-made climate change,
prediction becomes a necessary activity. One can argue that we don't know
enough. If we don't know enough, then we need to fix that.

On Jun 10, 10:29 am, "Mike Rhino" wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message

...







The basic idea of chaos theory, now called complexity
science, is this as I understand it; a self organized system
stands persistantly poised between two distinctly and
dramatically different states.

And a minor change in initial conditions, as visualized
by the butterfly effect, can push the system into one
or the other distinctly different behaviors.
Often in an entirely random or sudden fashion.

A way of imagining this effect is to visualize water
that has been heated just to the point of becoming
vapor, but not quite. Holding the temperature at
that..very narrow.. temperature range would lead to
a system that acts as a self organized system.
Where even a tiny change in temperature leads
the system into one, or the other, dramatically
different states, either water or vapor.

The climate of the earth is thought to behave in
such a way. The transition from ice ages to
interglacial warming periods is considered to
be such a chaotic system. Where a tiny change
can have a dramatic effect, either an ice age or
interglacial.

Chaos in the Atmosphere
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm#M_33_

Gambling is a chaotic activity, yet in the long run, the casino wins. The
weather in Detroit on Oct 12 of each year is chaotic, yet the overall
averages are less chaotic. In the case of man-made climate change,
prediction becomes a necessary activity. One can argue that we don't know
enough. If we don't know enough, then we need to fix that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Earth's greater volume of 1.098e21 m3 is essentially 98.5% fluid, and
it has a very nearby and absolutely massive mascon of 7.35e22 kg,
that's continually in orbit. Do the math.

While you're at it, tell us where and when Earth got its seasonal
tilt.

Also, tell us why Earth is so gosh darn salty, and Mars is not.

Share your best swag as to why Venus is getting rid of roughly 256
fold more of its core worth of geothermal energy, as in greater than
Earth.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:29:44 -0700, Mike Rhino wrote:

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

The basic idea of chaos theory, now called complexity science, is this
as I understand it; a self organized system stands persistantly poised
between two distinctly and dramatically different states.

And a minor change in initial conditions, as visualized by the butterfly
effect, can push the system into one or the other distinctly different
behaviors. Often in an entirely random or sudden fashion.

A way of imagining this effect is to visualize water that has been
heated just to the point of becoming vapor, but not quite. Holding the
temperature at that..very narrow.. temperature range would lead to a
system that acts as a self organized system. Where even a tiny change in
temperature leads the system into one, or the other, dramatically
different states, either water or vapor.

The climate of the earth is thought to behave in such a way. The
transition from ice ages to interglacial warming periods is considered
to be such a chaotic system. Where a tiny change can have a dramatic
effect, either an ice age or interglacial.

Chaos in the Atmosphere
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/chaos.htm#M_33_

Gambling is a chaotic activity, yet in the long run, the casino wins. The
weather in Detroit on Oct 12 of each year is chaotic, yet the overall
averages are less chaotic. In the case of man-made climate change,
prediction becomes a necessary activity. One can argue that we don't know
enough. If we don't know enough, then we need to fix that.

Chaos requires a nonlinear feedback system. Casino gambling is
simply random, and does not qualify as chaotic, as there is no feedback.
A (fair) coin that comes up heads 10 times in a row still has even odds on
the next throw. Each random event is separate.

Weather is one of the original examples of chaos, Climate is simply
weather low-pass filtered (averaged) over time and space. Filtered chaos
is still chaos, so climate is indeed chaotic.

I think the OP makes some good points, but I'm afraid the idea of
predicting chaotic behavior such as the market is doomed to failure.
It's almost Godelian. Suppose there were a proven method to profit from
predicting the market. As soon as everyone used that method, it could no
longer work, since not everyone can win in a zero sum game. Any
successful method would not be successful if a significant number of
participants in the market were using it. To me, it seems similar to the
halting problem in computer science.

Bottom line is, climate is chaotic, inherently unpredictable, and climate
modeling is about as predictive as chicken entrails. It's all about
smoke, mirrors and fast shuffles.

On 2007-06-10 09:21:29 -1000, Bill Ward said:

Bottom line is, climate is chaotic, inherently unpredictable, and climate
modeling is about as predictive as chicken entrails. It's all about
smoke, mirrors and fast shuffles.

Not so. The three-body problem is chaotic, as Poincaré showed, yet we
have a solar system with ten major bodies and a plethora of minor ones
that, thankfully, remains in a stable enough state that Newton was able
to work out the obital dynamics. Despite chaos, we can still have a
faith in physics. Our world may fly apart at any moment, but you still
expect your car to slow down when you put on the brakes, you still
expect to fall rather than fly when you throw yourself off the cliff
(unless, of course, you accidentally miss the ground :-), and you still
expect the atmosphere to warm if you fill it with infrared absorbers.

It is the acceptance of chaos and of the intrinsic unpredictability of
the system that explains the wide range of forecast temperatures. If
you look at the full range of Monte Carlo predictions, you'll find that
there is even a not-insignificant chance that we'll descend into
another Ice Age. As far as we can tell from the physics, the likeliest
outcome, however, is continued rapid increase in temperature. Such
increase might not matter if the Earth were not already as warm as it
has ever been in the last three million years.

We do not know for certain if the Earth is approaching a transition
from the glacial-interglacial dance of the last few million years to
some new, hotter, metastable state. That we are are already at the
extremal temperature of interglacials should, however, concern us all.
If the transition to a new state does occur, then we are in for tough
times. For starters, all of our ideas about national boundaries and
about agriculture will rapidly become irrelevant.

What is so infuriating about the global warming debate is that there is
all this argument about whether or not mankind is accelerating that
warming. Even if mankind had absolutely no responsibility for global
warming, we should still be asking the question "What should we do
about it?"

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:57:06 -1000, in a place far, far away, Gerard
Fryer made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


What is so infuriating about the global warming debate is that there is
all this argument about whether or not mankind is accelerating that
warming. Even if mankind had absolutely no responsibility for global
warming, we should still be asking the question "What should we do
about it?"

Not necessarily. That assumes that global warming is an intrinsic
problem which depends on whether the net effects are good, or bad
(which depends on what one considers "good" and "bad"). It also
assumes that the things we decide to do won't make things worse in
other, unpredictable, ways.

Ignoring the issue of whether or not it's anthropogenic, the hierarchy
of issues a

Is the planet warming?

If so, is this a good thing or bad thing?

If it's a bad thing, is there something we can do about it?

If so, will this result in even worse things?

Of these questions, the only one one on which there is any legitimate
scientific consensus is the first, that the planet is warming.

The remaining questions are rarely discussed at all, and they're not
ones on which scientists are uniquely (or at all) qualified to
discuss, at least as scientists. They get into issues of economics,
politics, and values.

Whata Fool wrote:

:On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:29:44 -0700, "Mike Rhino"
:wrote:
:
: Weather really isn't chaotic, ...
:

No, it really is. That's why forecasts tend to start breaking down
after 4 days or so. The fact that chaotic attractors exist within the
system (which is the case with weather and why it doesn't just go
flying off into full randomness) does not make weather a non-chaotic
system.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Bill Ward" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:29:44 -0700, Mike Rhino wrote:



Gambling is a chaotic activity, yet in the long run, the casino wins.
The
weather in Detroit on Oct 12 of each year is chaotic, yet the overall
averages are less chaotic. In the case of man-made climate change,
prediction becomes a necessary activity. One can argue that we don't
know enough. If we don't know enough, then we need to fix that.

Chaos requires a nonlinear feedback system. Casino gambling is
simply random, and does not qualify as chaotic, as there is no feedback.
A (fair) coin that comes up heads 10 times in a row still has even odds on
the next throw. Each random event is separate.


In complexity science it's important to initially categorize system behavior
in terms of attractor theory. In which only three broad realms of behavior
exist; static, dynamic and chaotic. A system that has near infinite
numbers of variables that follow essentially the same simple
rules of operation, such as a gases following the gas law, would
be chaotic behavior. In more general terms, the chaotic attractor
is filled by any behavior analogous to quantum like motion.
Where summing over or statistical treatments are required
due to the large number of components
Quantum motion, gasses, weather, life sciences and so on.
Where quantum mechanics rule.

Static behavior would be the opposite, systems with few and
simple deterministic variables.
Where Newtonian mechanics rule.

Dynamic attractor behavior is simply where both static and chaotic
behavior coexist. This is the realm of fluid behavior and where
thermodynamics rule.

This is also where Darwinian evolution exists in an abstract
mathematical sense. That is the great discovery of the chaos and
complexity sciences. Spontaneous self organization occurs
within the dynamic or complex realm, where both newtonian and
quantum like behaviors simulaneously exists. Which is why it's
considered 'complex', both opposite realms of mathematics
are needed at the same time to model a messy real world system.

It's why one always looks for water in the search for life
elswhere. Not because water is some sort of magic elixir.
But because fluid-like or dynamic motion, where static and
chaotic behavior overlap, has the property of spontaneous order
emerging from the cloud of complexity.



Weather is one of the original examples of chaos, Climate is simply
weather low-pass filtered (averaged) over time and space. Filtered chaos
is still chaos, so climate is indeed chaotic.
I think the OP makes some good points, but I'm afraid the idea of
predicting chaotic behavior such as the market is doomed to failure.
It's almost Godelian. Suppose there were a proven method to profit from
predicting the market. As soon as everyone used that method, it could no
longer work, since not everyone can win in a zero sum game. Any
successful method would not be successful if a significant number of
participants in the market were using it. To me, it seems similar to the
halting problem in computer science.



That was my first concern with trying to use these ideas in stock
trading. The beauty of complexity science became absolutely clear
once I realized one simple fact of this new science.
It's a science that inverses typical objective methods of
dealing with complex systems. So guess what, the results
are inversed also. The more that know the better. What
were weaknesses are now strengths when applying
complexity science. What was hard is now easy.

The source of study is no longer the initial conditions
and their paths into the future. Which can only be
effective for simpler systems. But the source of study
is the ..output.. of a complex adaptive system.
The reason is simple, the input side of a living adaptive
system is extraordinarily complicated. And random
interactions are everywhere. But, in essense, on the
output side such systems are proportionally just as...simple
as the input side is complicated.

This is a very important point.

Classical methods seek to simplify whenever possible
when dealing with a complicated or real world system.
They try to turn it into a problem with few variables that
directly map using equations of all kinds.
In short, objective methods run from complexity
and towards simplicity to get a grip on real world
messiness.

With complexity science, they do the opposite in order
to find simplicity. They search for the very pinnacle of complexity
on the input side, as that is where the output becomes simpler
and more predictable.

In stock trading this takes the form of seeking out the
most volatile and unpredictable stock behavior that
can be found....as a starting point. For instance, a
panic sell situation involving several million traders
due to some rumor that no one can tell is true or not.
From an objective point of view, that is the most
difficult to predict, since the internal variables
are unknowable, almost countless and highly
volatile. Like a gas.

Even an experienced trader would shy from such
a situation. Which makes it an entry level situation
for a chaos trader. To swim in the real world we
must think clearly and have ...no fear.

And when such a system manages to hit just the
right level of dynamics, when it self organizes,
two and only two patterns emerge. Two universal
patterns emerge regardless of the company name.

When you see one or the other pre-images you
know what is going on inside, that the system
has attained the level of complexity required
to self organize. And take on a life of its own.
Which means that universal behavior takes
over the system. The stock price and volume
changes are no longer dependent on system
specifics such as the company, product ect.

So you see what happens? Once the behavior
becomes universal, I don't need to know a whit
about the company and it's internal details.
I can play any stock, any industry and time
scale, once a system has self organized.

One only needs to recognize two patterns.
The static or chaotic pre-image. Two simple
templates.





Bottom line is, climate is chaotic, inherently unpredictable, and climate
modeling is about as predictive as chicken entrails. It's all about
smoke, mirrors and fast shuffles.


The point is that the weather is a chaotic system. As such
it is just one component to a complex adaptive system.
We cannot study it in isolation, but in terms of its relationships
to the other two components which all complex adaptive
systems have. The other two are static and dynamic
attractors which together with chaotic weather compromise
a complete system.

We can't know in detail the future of any chaotic system
when studied in isolation. But only when its part of
a larger system. Weather has to be treated as the chaotic
component to a system comprised of static, dynamic, and
chaotic attractors.

So if weather is the chaotic component of a larger system.
What are the static and dynamic components?
Geology and thermodynamics.

Static, dynamic and chaotic
solid, liquid and gas.

Or

genetics, natural selection and mutation.
science, philosophy and religion.

So to me, global warming is much like any ecosystem
that has pretty much filled its niche and is in the process
of expanding/bursting into an adjoining niche.
Life is pushing the planet to warm, and stay warm, to
support a much larger and more stable living ecosystem.
And such a burst of life follows a power law distribution of
events, just like an earthquake. With many minor events
combined with the rare 'big-one'.

This is the 'big-one'. Where we burst out of the cycle
of ice ages coming and going all too frequently imo.

The grand unified theory has always taken the
form of trying to unite classical and quantum
motion into a single mathematics.
Complexity science has managed to not only
do that, but include living systems...Darwin.. as well.
A single mathematics for life, the universe and
everything.

Coming soon to a theatre near you!

Self organized system faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
Full online text
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html

Calresco
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:52:07 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Ultimately, I believe, democracy and freedom are the
answers to global warming. Not in the sense of returning
our climate as it was, but settling on a warmer but
more stable equilibrium.

There really is no choice, unless the greenies go all out
promoting nuclear power, and power companies start selling hot water for
space heating in the big cities in the north.
Just those two things would make a huge difference, and there
really isn't anything else that would make that kind of difference.
Ethanol and biodiesel are carbon neutral, but unless there is
a huge grass roots implementation of small ethanol stills that the waste
heat can be used to heat homes and the ethanol used in cars, there isn't
any other way to keep warm, the trees won't last long if wood has to be
used to heat homes.
So maybe the greens need to decide which they want, nuclear
power, or all the trees cut down.

THIS IS WHETHER OR NOT GW IS A SCAM OR NOT.

Global warming is coming, it's going to cause massive
changes and hardships during the transition to the new
equilibrium. But in the long term, the changes will benefit
humanity.

You can't say global warming is coming or not, and neither
can the IPCC or any scientist. But there is one thing for
certain, all the ice is NOT going to EVER melt because of a 2 or 3
degree temperature change.

As an end to the 'boom and bust' ice-age cycle is upon us.
We live in an unprecidented period of climate history!
Imho.
Thanks for reading
Jonathan

Only because of the population numbers, and the new
technologies that appear every day.

Just having good batteries, alone might make living
comfortably without using as much fuel for space heating, and good
batteries would make electric vehicles and plugin electric vehicles good
enough to greatly reduce transportation fuel use, but even with that,
nuclear power is needed, and lots of it.
So, greens need to decide.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 10:29:44 -0700, "Mike Rhino"
wrote:

Gambling is a chaotic activity, yet in the long run, the casino wins. The
weather in Detroit on Oct 12 of each year is chaotic, yet the overall
averages are less chaotic. In the case of man-made climate change,
prediction becomes a necessary activity. One can argue that we don't know
enough. If we don't know enough, then we need to fix that.

Weather really isn't chaotic, it only appears that way
sometimes. There are too many regulating processes for it to be
chaotic, only so much rain can fall, the wind can only blow so
hard, and things that get warmer will lose heat faster.

The computer models really are too primitive to have a
chance of predicting anything specific, perhaps that is why most of
the IPCC reports have had a larger range of predicted sea level
rise, they were using the extreme results from a couple of different
models.