I don’t like to see others distort the sciences to suit their ends. Science like religion is supposed to be above that sort of thing, and their abuse invariably harms people. It wasn’t perfectly clear to me that you did not make the comparison to me. Which is why I tried to differentiate starting with the title sentence. As you can see I was getting quite punchy at the end. I re-read it. If there was any hint of a personal attack against you in there, it certainly wasn’t intended that way, and I apologize.

I feel fully armed the next time I have a discussion with a Goracle follower.

You can’t do that until you do establish causal links, start with the mechanistic work of the kind I described above, and then actually find a working mechanism that makes 380 ppm CO2 significant compared to 280 ppm CO2. None of that has been done, and the Obama administration is ready to write sweeping back-breaking policy on those assumptions. It’s criminal.

Literally what the IPCC has done is to employ economic models, to arrive at their conclusions, which by no means relfects physical reality, even economic reality for that matter. Their chief starting assumption, that Mankind through his introduction of CO2 into the biosphere is the sole source of all non-standard climate events is an incredibly huge stretch of the imagination.

The Lotka Volterra equations simple as they are, show naturally observable periodicity, without any presumption about the nature of the solution.

My assumptions start with those 90-year-old assumptions:
Deer eat grass, make more deer.
Wolf eat deer, make more wolf.
Wolf die, make more grass.
That set of “assumptions” alone gets stable, reasonable conclusions, better than Al Gore could. Do I really need to find first-grade nature films on YouTube to justify these statements?

If one wants to properly describe the system, one must describe all the little steps that occur in that system, in a way that each step is actually occurring.

CO2 isn’t just being put up into the atmosphere by Mankind. Plants are removing it and are building more plants, which are also removing CO2.
Animals eat plants and diminish their capacity to remove CO2. Animals, dead plants, and sometimes even live plants are adding CO2 to the atmosphere all the time. The rates at which all this things happen determine the CO2 level. The problem is of course that this has nothing to do with AGW

This is far different than simply concluing that CO2 is the cuprit, it’s rising and causing a temperature change. You can to that until you do start with the work i described above, establish links, and then actually finding a working mechanism that’s significant enough to make 380 ppm CO2 significant compared to 280 ppm CO2. Non of that has been done, and we are ready to write sweeping back-breaking policy on those assumptions.

Someone actually wrote a much-less famous book called Crash go the Chariots that addressed exactly the same sorts of things that struck me. It seems the same here – instead of comparing assumptions under some probabilities, you take one assumption to be true, then use it as a given (KnownFact) and another assumption, thus transforming it into a given for the next round, etc., and then in the end claim all this pile of crap you created with a probability of 0.00001 is a given fact that only an idiot would contest.

I’ve actually done them in the laboratory benchtop. Makes you almost believe in magic.

Bear with me, the punchline comes after the math. I swear, it’s simpler that it looks.

Lotka-Volterra has drawback (which I’ll mention at the end) but generally describes simple population oscillations. It is derived directly from a simple model from direct observations:

Grass is available. A
Dear eat grass and reproduce A + X -> 2X; k1 is a rate constant
Wolves eat dear and reporduce X + Y -> 2Y; k2 is a rate constant
Wolves die, fertilize and replace grass. Y -> Z; k3 is a rate constant

These constants k are associated with the rate that these events occur, namely the rates at which grass is consumed/replaced, deer double in numbers, and wolves double in numbers.

Unlike MOST chemical equilibrium reactions, each step in the ecological sequence above is irreversible. There is no direct feedback mechanism. That is to say: wolves may eat deer, but deer don’t eat wolves; they eat grass first fertilized by dead wolves. Wolves are ‘limited” only by the availability of deer. Deer are “limited’ only by the availability of grass. Grass is ‘limited” finally, only by fertilization from dead wolves.

So you can express the whole thing in terms of differential equations, making very few assumptions beyond that, namely giving a starting point with average values for grass, deer and wolves. Ao, Xo, and Yo.

The results that fit are time-dependant periodic functions, describing the difference between the starting values and current numbers of dear and wolves (grass is a huge essentially constant reservior).

(X – Xo) = cos [k2*sqrt(XoYo)] = cos [k1*k3*sqrt(Ao)]

(Y – Yo) = sin [k2*sqrt(XoYo)] = sin [k1*k3*sqrt(Ao)]

So, following wolves: wolves eat deer, deer diminish in numbers, wolves are too successful, and diminish in numbers for lack of food, deer become resurgant, and their populations jump…

wolves are resurgent, and their populations jump, diminishing deer…
wolves are too suceessful and dwindle for lack of food, allowing deer to return successful…
wolves are resurgent, and their populations jump, diminishing deer…
wolves are too suceessful and dwindle for lack of food, allowing deer to return successful…

You get the idea.

Stable limit-cycle equations of this type are to date completely asbent from all environmentally predictive calculations fronted by the IPCC that I have seen.
Trends? They have no place in the natural world. Tipping points? Phooey!

This is NOT an equilibrium, which would normally be quoted as desriable, but a oscillation about an unstable, unattainable average number. It’s this negative feedback loop that AGW proponents constantly miss. (Deliberately or not is a good question.)

How would something like this apply to the atmosphere? Well, let’s see:

Substitute Oceans, clouds and rain for A, X, and Y.
Make k1 solar evaporation
Make k2 shading by clouds
Make k3 ground water runoff to the ocean

What you get is oscillatory cloud formation, followed by precipiation, followed by sunshine.

Ozone? NOT! Ozone is in direct equilibilrum with its surroundings, scienists therefore can keep the equilibrium equations currently used. The oscillatory part over the Antarctic comes from the yearly dimuntion of light over the South Pole as a function of Earth’s revolution around the Sun. Ozone depletion? Caused by introduction of a fourth player, the chlorine radical, which, by the way, merely shifted, rather than disrupted, the equilibrium to a lower concentration. Stop throwing in the chlorine, re-establish the original equilibirum point.

But you could extend the analogy to the polar ice caps and the thermohaline circuit.

Try the same idea with carbon dioxide and green plants. Are you seeing the light?
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere through the consumption of fossil fuels merely shifts Ao, Xo, and Yo somewhat ; the oscillatory behavior never reaches any “tipping point”. In fact, the shift make make the system less susceptible to a catastrophic event.

Weather storms come in wave fronts for a reason…

Let’s not also forget that you can couple all of these phenomena in one grand and complicated system, which becomes increasingly erratic, but similarly stable, and more realistic.

Now imagine applying this type of logic simultaneously to every species on a rotating, revolving, planet. This sort of math isn’t bad. It just needs to be much more holistic and comprehensive. The more mathematics describes real events, the more likely you’ll get an answer that holds up to scrutiny, and may even become predictive of the weather, 72 hours into the future…

What’s remarkable about this is government’s almost perfect track record of being utterly incapable of solving ANY problem at, with a rather strong correlation between the level of government action and how much worse the problem becomes.

It’s as if when someone came down with a severe but mysterious illness they would seek out the doctor who finished last in his class and all of whose patients die young.

The eco-Left probably truly believes we’re destroying the planet however, the politicians who are promoting this hoax are merely using it as a means to increase their power. They couldn’t care less about climate change.

Why, it’s the standard amount by which the federal budget deviates from the rosy forecast put out by the government each year.