The Mathematics of Global Warming

American Thinker ^ | November 30, 2009 | Peter Landesman

[neverdem]

The forecasts of global warming are based on the mathematical solutions of equations in models of the weather.  But all of these solutions are inaccurate. Therefore no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global warming. The false claim for the effectiveness of mathematics is an unreported scandal at least as important as the recent climate data fraud. Why is the math important? And why don't the climatologists use it correctly?

Mathematics has a fundamental role in the development of all physical sciences. First the researchers strive to understand the laws of nature determining the behavior of what they are studying. Then they build a model and express these laws in the mathematics of differential and difference equations. Next the mathematicians analyze the solutions to these equations to improve the understanding of the scientist. Often the mathematicians can describe the evolution through time of the scientist's model.

The most famous successful use of mathematics in this way was Isaac Newton's demonstration that the planets travel in elliptical paths around the sun.  He formulated the law of gravity (that the rate of change of the velocity between two masses is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them) and then developed the mathematics of differential calculus to demonstrate his result.

Every college physics student studies many of the simple models and their successful solutions that have been found over the 300 years after Newton.  Engineers constantly use models and mathematics to gain insight into the physics of their field. 

However, for many situations of interest, the mathematics may become too difficult. The mathematicians are unable to answer the scientist's important questions because a complete understanding of the differential equations is beyond human knowledge.  A famous longstanding such unsolved problem is the n-body problem:  if more than two planets are revolving around one another, according to the law of gravity, will the planets ram each other or will they drift out to infinity?

Fortunately, in the last fifty years computers have been able to help mathematicians solve complex models over short time periods. Numerical analysts have developed techniques to graph solutions to differential equations and thus to yield new information about the model under consideration.  All college calculus students use calculators to find solutions to simple differential equations called integrals.  Space-travel is possible because computers can solve the n-body problem for short times and small n.  The design of the stealth jet fighter could not have been accomplished without the computing speed of parallel processors.  These successes have unrealistically raised the expectations for the application of mathematics to scientific problems.

Unfortunately, even assuming the model of the physics is correct, computers and mathematicians cannot solve more difficult problems such as the weather equations for several reasons.  First, the solution may require more computations than computers can make.  Faster and faster computers push back the speed barrier every year.  Second, it may be too difficult to collect enough data to accurately determine the initial conditions of the model. Third, the equations of the model may be non-linear. This means that no simplification of the equations can accurately predict the properties of the solutions of the differential equations. The solutions are often unstable. That is a small variation in initial conditions lead to large variations some time later. This property makes it impossible to compute solutions over long time periods.

As an expert(pdf) in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in the models of the weather are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately.  No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming.  Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing.  Each of the more than 30 models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations.  (Of course this is only an issue if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not because the climatologists probably do not understand all of the physical processes determining the weather.)

Therefore, logically one cannot conclude that any of the predictions are correct. To base economic policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view. The leaders of the mathematical community, ensconced in universities flush with global warming dollars, have not adequately explained to the public the above facts.

President Obama should appoint a Mathematics Czar to consult before he goes to Copenhagen.

Peter Landesman mathmaze@yahoo.com is the author of the 3D-maze book Spacemazes for children to have fun while learning mathematics.

[FormerACLUmember]

It is impossible to apply mathematics to global warming data, since the repository of such data at the notorious Climate Research Unit just announced that all 150 years of original data was destroyed.

I kid you not.

[UCANSEE2]

Because of the complexity of the math and the problematic models, climate made an easy target to use in controlling the world’s resources and finances.

[Islam=Murder]

After the Socialists melted down the economy by giving free houses to anyone based on race, they blamed “The Free Market” as flawed.

And now that the Socialists just got busted with “global warming” equations that don’t support “global warming,” watch them blame “Mathematics” as flawed.

Soon, we’ll be told we need “new math” because “old math” doesn’t work.

NEW MATH:

Anything + Anything = Global Warming
Anything - Anything = Global Warming
Anything x Anything = Global Warming
Anything / Anything = Global Warming

Anything squared = Give Communists $3 Trillion in New Taxes Because If You Resist They’ll Get Nasty

[riri]

Because of the complexity of the math and the problematic models, climate made an easy target to use in controlling the world’s resources and finances.

It was actually a brilliant scam, on many levels. One, it pulled into that natural apocalyptic belief most humans have or easily fall prey to. Two, it was easily presented as too complex for the average Joe to fully understand. Three, it was hard to morally refute.

The problem is turning the psychos that fell for this off. Many of them have filled their spiritual void with it and many ne'er do wells have found the perfect excuse to never achieve much or acquire much and at the same time, make sure no one one else should either. This, like socialism, ensures that they'd never have to feel inferior again if we were all destitute in the name of the environment.

[Islam=Murder]

“......have found the perfect excuse to never achieve much or acquire much and at the same time, make sure no one one else should either. This, like socialism, ensures that they’d never have to feel inferior again if we were all destitute in the name of the environment.”

GREAT POINT!

[Bon mots]

Really Scary News From Planet Gore! (This is totally serial!)

Click on either of the images below to see the father of Gore-Bull Warming make one foolish proclamation after another...
This clown is the left's man of science

The Polar Ice Cap Will Be GONE in 5 Years!"

(It will not. In fact, right after Gore made this silly proclamation it was found that the North Polar ice cap has significantly GROWN in both area and thickness.)

"The center of the Earth is extremely hot, several million degrees..."

...but luckily, we have drill bits now that can withstand those temperatures...
(It is not! The center of the earth is only estimated to be between 4000 and 6000 degrees.)
:)

In the above clip, not only does Gore claim that the earth's core is hotter than the surface of the sun, but he says that we have now invented drill bits that do not melt in that heat.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[SuziQ]

Math ping!

[StACase]

Climate Research Unit just announced that all 150 years of original data was destroyed.

I kid you not.

I keep my family's genealogy records. As such I've made all sorts of electronic copies of the old photographs and documents. Under no circumstances would I ever consider throwing away any of the original material. For these guys to claim it was thrown away for lack of space is a lie. I assume that the claim that it was thrown away in the '80s is a lie too. Thrown away or hidden when McIntyre asked for it is probably closer to the truth.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Good article! It rings true.

[Enchante]

re: destruction of data/records

it is virtually impossible to believe that such fundamental records would be destroyed for alleged lack of space..... universities everywhere retain innumerable records, books, papers etc. for centuries.

As you note, there has also been no public confirmation (that I have seen) providing any evidence that such records really were destroyed in the 1980s. So far it seems that the only such “evidence” is the untrustworthy word of Phil Jones and his cohorts.

Also, the only *real* reason a university climate center supported by public funds would have for destroying such records is to prevent outside researchers from ever being able to review them. It’s a total “trust us” position from people who have proved they are unworthy of public or scientific trust. They massaged the data and destroyed the original records??? No one with any sense would trust them now....

[scrabblehack]

I don’t think it would be impossible to reassemble the original data. Some of the links at these sites have it; others have “adjusted” data or some such.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/contents.htm

[StACase]

Things are looking up, the very liberal Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ran this cartoon this morning:

[acw011]

“Milwaukee Journal Sentinel”

2nd time I’ve seen your post today with the red X picture. Do you have a link? I went to jsonline to look, but I’m sure it’s buried somewhere - would like to see the toon.

[StACase]

Try the cartoonists web page:

http://www.cagle.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/bok.asp

[WL-law]

“I don’t think it would be impossible to reassemble the original data. Some of the links at these sites have it; others have “adjusted” data or some such.”

You’re missing the real point. Jones has the adjusted data, but that means he’s applied his “secret sauce” to the original data, and often multiple layers of secret sauce, to get the desired curve on the adjusted data.

The only way to verify exactly what the secret sauce was, and to know whether it was legit or fraud, is to see the raw (unadjusted) data. And that’s what was unavailable because it was, first, “confidential”, and now — well, just plain missing altogether. The dog ate it.

And I strongly suspect that seeing the ‘adjustments’ compared against the raw data, in table form, would make the whole exercise clear — we would see normal variation in temperatures in the unadjusted raw series, and — voila !! — a steeply increasing curve in the adjusted data.

And Jones would have some ‘splaining to do!

[Enchante]

that’s one thing I’ve wondered about.... one might hope that all the original sources for the raw data might still have it in their own records? Unless they were sending original historic (pre-computer) documents without keeping any copy???

It would be some significant cost to re-assemble all that data from so many sources, but I would not think that weather stations etc. destroy their own data?? Although in the current corrupt environment, who knows, maybe AGW hacks all over have been destroying original data so that only the “adjusted” data still exists.

[ully2]

This is equivalent of a photographer throwing away all his negatives because he has already photo shopped them all.

[houeto]

Try the cartoonists web page:

That doesn't work either.