Woops!
The other day, the (near-Chicago) temps ranged from about 85 down to 45. These are abnormal extremes. However, if you look at the average temp., one might say that it was close to a normal day, (compared to the past for this calendar day). A climate denier would certainly say this. That's because we are only looking at grades on a linear scale - where, (therefore), not a lot of additional factors are added into the calculation.
However, the mean temp for the day was very high. The mean temp is a statistical measure which is more "three-dimensional," in that it weights the various temps of the day, not just one high and one low. This way, if it is warm for most of the day, then the mean will be higher than the average temp. Got it?
So, it occurred to me that this can be an example, or fractal, of what is happening to the global climate, and how people tend to measure it wrongly, especially those who are climate deniers. We can say that the average temp of the globe is a little warmer than in the past - but what about the averaged mean temperatures? (Somewhat, together, they would average out, since the heat of the globe moves around and compensates - but not entirely.
And, many people might make predictions and expectations, if not based on the regularity of the past, based on this sort of linear-average thinking, when in fact what is required are geometrical or non-linear predictions based on the inclusion of many variables, as is done in measuring mean temps locally.
I am not just referring to temps. I am saying that, maybe even with the best AI supercomputers, we may continue to miss the rising chaos of other variables, which really demands that we make a model which is as multidimensional as the globe itself. That can't be done if, as a symbolic example, we were to use local measurements which were linear-averages, as opposed to means, when it comes to temps, or humidity, or particulates, or etc., etc., etc. We need to go even beyond means, in measuring temps, etc., and include nonlinear interactions locally, between many other variables.
I realise that advanced climatology has been calculating things quite extensively, and I don't assume they are ignorant at all of what I am saying. However, I think that mistakes and assumptions may still be made in local measurements, which then aggregate into larger mistakes, such as: "Scientists find that the Bering Sea is heating far faster than expected," and so forth.
I am saying that not only are there biases in the thinking of climate-deniers, but also in some science, which may continue to be, partly, reductionist, arithmetic or mechanical, in the same was as was Newtonian and Euclidean thinking prior to the revolutions of Relativity and Quantum Dynamics theories.
This is another way of saying what I have posted earlier here: There will arise additional factors, complications, interactions, and tipping points, which will defy even our best predictive models, (which keep becoming anachronistic and insufficient).
For example, no one knows what is the extent of the internal heating of the planet, or how that will affect climate change, via volcanoes, and so forth. For even the best computers, there are only good scientific guesses. And that is because we never, never are able to measure ALL factors involved, and veritably, all factors ARE involved.
We are still surprised by the accelerating pace of melting ice caps. Or by methane release from permafrost. By the time we think we have our collective mind around what is happening, it will be be too late. And, another thing is: Science is always a little behind reality, because it must spend lots of time for measurements, and then it must replicate experiments, and then it must be accepted in peer reviews - and then it tells the public, and politics goes into denial until it can find some way to make profits out of the news for those really in power.
So: Even if science were to make more multi-factoral measurements and algorithms, these character flaws alone mean that there will always be a big lag between the reality and the bad news. People who have been in touch with animals, their gardens, their health, and so on, usually are the ones who know more about reality, whereas they are usually the ones who are not listened to.
Back to the "mean temps" idea... I think this can be a simple way of helping others look at the bigger picture. An 'average day' may in fact be a global-warming day, when we consider the weight of all temps, from noon til night. Similarly: A year may seem not that much warmer than normal, when it can be understood to be very much warmer when the mean is considered. The same goes for the epoch.
And, even as averaged temps look normal, in fact the extremes of temps gets worse - but we don't see this even in the mean. The fact is that temps are not only getting warmer, they are getting more scattered about. In the same way, we may not be getting more hurricanes, or tornadoes, but their chaos and force are increasing. Things may seem normal to climate-deniers, but extremes in mean winter temps vs summer temps increase - as is shown in the fractal of a day. I am sure many of you can elabourate upon these observations and analogies.
We may get normal rainfall in one year, but the rain might be intense in the late winter and early spring, and be almost absent in the summer and fall.
This year, in the Midwest, especially Illinois, the soil is too wet from rainfall. Last week, only 3% of soybeans were planted, compared to 64% at the same time last year. (Today, I was happy to hear Thom Hartmann discuss this - something I had learnt about via the local conservative farm show!) That means late planting, and a possibly devastatingly poor harvest - of wheat, corn, soy, etc. this fall - leading to rising prices.
And, if the trend towards diverging extremes per day, (and per year, and per century), continue, then a drought could come along later in the year to just wipe out whatever is still trying to grow. It's a possibility that we are not accustomed to predicting.
But, again, these new tipping points, resulting from increasing chaos, affect each other, and lead to climate eventualities and emergencies that are just beyond our models and our ability to handle - as the years unfold.
It is all because we can't measure and calculate everything, because, contrary to popular assumptions, we are not, "God."
However, the mean temp for the day was very high. The mean temp is a statistical measure which is more "three-dimensional," in that it weights the various temps of the day, not just one high and one low. This way, if it is warm for most of the day, then the mean will be higher than the average temp. Got it?
So, it occurred to me that this can be an example, or fractal, of what is happening to the global climate, and how people tend to measure it wrongly, especially those who are climate deniers. We can say that the average temp of the globe is a little warmer than in the past - but what about the averaged mean temperatures? (Somewhat, together, they would average out, since the heat of the globe moves around and compensates - but not entirely.
And, many people might make predictions and expectations, if not based on the regularity of the past, based on this sort of linear-average thinking, when in fact what is required are geometrical or non-linear predictions based on the inclusion of many variables, as is done in measuring mean temps locally.
I am not just referring to temps. I am saying that, maybe even with the best AI supercomputers, we may continue to miss the rising chaos of other variables, which really demands that we make a model which is as multidimensional as the globe itself. That can't be done if, as a symbolic example, we were to use local measurements which were linear-averages, as opposed to means, when it comes to temps, or humidity, or particulates, or etc., etc., etc. We need to go even beyond means, in measuring temps, etc., and include nonlinear interactions locally, between many other variables.
I realise that advanced climatology has been calculating things quite extensively, and I don't assume they are ignorant at all of what I am saying. However, I think that mistakes and assumptions may still be made in local measurements, which then aggregate into larger mistakes, such as: "Scientists find that the Bering Sea is heating far faster than expected," and so forth.
I am saying that not only are there biases in the thinking of climate-deniers, but also in some science, which may continue to be, partly, reductionist, arithmetic or mechanical, in the same was as was Newtonian and Euclidean thinking prior to the revolutions of Relativity and Quantum Dynamics theories.
This is another way of saying what I have posted earlier here: There will arise additional factors, complications, interactions, and tipping points, which will defy even our best predictive models, (which keep becoming anachronistic and insufficient).
For example, no one knows what is the extent of the internal heating of the planet, or how that will affect climate change, via volcanoes, and so forth. For even the best computers, there are only good scientific guesses. And that is because we never, never are able to measure ALL factors involved, and veritably, all factors ARE involved.
We are still surprised by the accelerating pace of melting ice caps. Or by methane release from permafrost. By the time we think we have our collective mind around what is happening, it will be be too late. And, another thing is: Science is always a little behind reality, because it must spend lots of time for measurements, and then it must replicate experiments, and then it must be accepted in peer reviews - and then it tells the public, and politics goes into denial until it can find some way to make profits out of the news for those really in power.
So: Even if science were to make more multi-factoral measurements and algorithms, these character flaws alone mean that there will always be a big lag between the reality and the bad news. People who have been in touch with animals, their gardens, their health, and so on, usually are the ones who know more about reality, whereas they are usually the ones who are not listened to.
Back to the "mean temps" idea... I think this can be a simple way of helping others look at the bigger picture. An 'average day' may in fact be a global-warming day, when we consider the weight of all temps, from noon til night. Similarly: A year may seem not that much warmer than normal, when it can be understood to be very much warmer when the mean is considered. The same goes for the epoch.
And, even as averaged temps look normal, in fact the extremes of temps gets worse - but we don't see this even in the mean. The fact is that temps are not only getting warmer, they are getting more scattered about. In the same way, we may not be getting more hurricanes, or tornadoes, but their chaos and force are increasing. Things may seem normal to climate-deniers, but extremes in mean winter temps vs summer temps increase - as is shown in the fractal of a day. I am sure many of you can elabourate upon these observations and analogies.
We may get normal rainfall in one year, but the rain might be intense in the late winter and early spring, and be almost absent in the summer and fall.
This year, in the Midwest, especially Illinois, the soil is too wet from rainfall. Last week, only 3% of soybeans were planted, compared to 64% at the same time last year. (Today, I was happy to hear Thom Hartmann discuss this - something I had learnt about via the local conservative farm show!) That means late planting, and a possibly devastatingly poor harvest - of wheat, corn, soy, etc. this fall - leading to rising prices.
And, if the trend towards diverging extremes per day, (and per year, and per century), continue, then a drought could come along later in the year to just wipe out whatever is still trying to grow. It's a possibility that we are not accustomed to predicting.
But, again, these new tipping points, resulting from increasing chaos, affect each other, and lead to climate eventualities and emergencies that are just beyond our models and our ability to handle - as the years unfold.
It is all because we can't measure and calculate everything, because, contrary to popular assumptions, we are not, "God."