|ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN|
I. Global Climate System
The graphic to the left is like this series, in the sense that it makes the point that when one analyzes a "system" one must avoid being trapped into analyzing individual parts (sub-systems) as if it is the system itself (The Damaged Global Climate System, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
The Global Climate System is no exception to that analytical rule, because a working understanding of the climate system requires not only a working awareness of the individual sub-systems, but one must also have a working knowledge of how the parts work together to compose and become a bona fide system.
When a system is damaged (by damage to one or more of its sub-systems), the system becomes "a damaged system."
A damaged system does not perform the same as it did when it was not damaged.
Here are some of the ideas involved in systems nomenclature:
1. Systemness: Bounded networks of relations among parts constitute a holistic unit. Systems interact with other systems, forming yet larger systems. The universe is composed of systems of systems.(Systems Science Framework, PDF; cf. Systems Science, Wikipedia; Ludwig von Bertalanffy - a founder of systems science; Principles of Systems Science, ACM Digital Library; What Are The Principles of Systems Science, PDF; What is Systems Theory?).
2. Systems are processes organized in structural and functional hierarchies.
3. Systems are themselves, and can be represented abstractly as, networks of relations between components.
4. Systems are dynamic on multiple time scales.
5. Systems exhibit various kinds and levels of complexity.
6. Systems evolve to accommodate long-term changes in their
7. Systems encode knowledge and receive and send information.
8. Systems have governance subsystems to achieve stability.
9. Systems contain models of other systems (e.g. simple built-in protocols for interaction with other systems and up to complex anticipatory models).
10. Sufficiently complex adaptive & evolvable systems can contain self models.
11. Systems can be understood (a corollary of #9) – Science.
12. Systems can be improved (a corollary of #6) – Engineering.
One intergovernmental body describes the climate system as:
"The climate system, as defined in this Report, is an interactive system(IPCC, 1.1.2 The Climate System, emphasis added; cf. Enviropedia, Climate System; Nature, The Global Climate System).
Weather is what the Global Climate System (composed of sub-systems) produces on any given day.
Weather is a different product at various locations around the globe, and it changes throughout the day and night, as well as changing with the seasons (Weather, Wikipedia, cf. NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?).
III. Undamaged vs. Damaged Systems
By definition and by systems nomenclature, the overall weather produced by an undamaged natural climate system is different from that produced by a damaged climate system.
The damaged system will engender anomalous activity at the sub-system and/or system levels, while the undamaged system (by definition) will not.
Once an undamaged system becomes a damaged system, the product it produces can be said to be "damaged goods."
IV. Detecting Damage
So, detecting damage to the global climate system is an exercise in watching weather patterns (What Is A Weather Pattern).
|How Hurricane Harvey|
Proved The Climate Change 'Hoax'
Thus, it behooves researchers to define what is anomalous and what is normal.
We watch so as to be able to discern changes that are anomalous.
When we hear anomalous events described as "this is the new normal" we should suspect that damage has occurred to the climate system.
Asking whether or not an anomalous event is caused by "climate change" or "climate same" is flawed analysis that, like the blind men around the elephant, does not consider the "systemness" of the situation.
Anomalous weather is evidence of a damaged system which made that weather.
V. Inability Or Reluctance To Detect Damage
We often hear that "we can't determine if any individual weather event is the result of climate change".
That is the product of a wrong question, because it is devoid of systemic analysis concepts (it is like asking "did the climate produce this weather?" ... which is an invalid analytical question).
The proper question is: "was this an anomalous weather event?"
The reason for the requirment of proper questioning during analysis is that improper questions cannot provide proper answers.
An undamaged system by definition cannot produce anomalous ("deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected") weather events.
An analysis produced by researchers who are reluctant to ask the proper questions, who are not looking for the correct answer, or are not interested in scientific analysis, is deceitful.
VI. Hurricane Harvey Was Anomalous
How many times have we heard that the still ongoing flooding in Texas is "unprecedented," all-time "record breaking," or "historic" (The Extinction of Houston - 2) ?
In other words, the weather event was anomalous ("deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected").
It was by definition, then, produced by a damaged global climate system.
We see anomalous weather, anomalous weather patterns, and we see them increasing all around the globe.
We should, therefore, remember "the direct effect of human activities on the climate system is considered [to be] an external forcing" (IPCC).
It is entirely proper to say that all anomalous weather events are the result of a damaged global climate system that has been improperly changed by the external forcing of improper activities conducted by human civilization.
The previous post in this series is here.