Isn't AGW, simply put, just a revamp of the butterfly effect?

Question

"The flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen, does. (Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos, pg. 141) "

http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

How exactly does one model chaos theory accurately?

Answer 1

Is there a use value to resolving that this is an example of chaos theory?

I see global temperature variation as a major vector sum. All contributors to the sum add independently or dependently. Clearly AGW  has a small contribution compared with water vapor, or compared with a major series of volcanic eruptions.

We do not need to model everything to know in which direction the vector it creates is pointing.

An example of this is methane. We know that more methane means more greenhouse effect, but what we do not observe is any persistent rise in methane concentration. So we do not expect that it is having an expanding role in GW.

This is different from saying that methane is not contributing. Methane is contributing but at a fairly constant rate, thus far. This could change in a massive way if far northern deposits of methane hydrate begin to melt, and they are starting.

We reasonably expect that as global temperatures rise, AGW will have a declining importance, even though it too may be far from negligible. It will have less importance because global warming itself causes global warming.

Answer 2

The difference in the two theories is that in the 'butterfly effect' it is concluded that there is an effect but we really don't know what that effect is because there are so many parameters that interplay--all we know is that things are different because of it(the butterfly).  In AGW theory, on the other hand, altering a parameter a little is extrapolated out to a particular conclusion with a high degree of certainty.  At this point, AGW proponents are  the only 'scientist' who think such an extrapolation is the least bit reliable.

Answer 3

AGW is quite a different idea to chaos theory.

The theory of AGW is that by changing the content of the atmosphere, humans will cause a measurable effect on the long term average temperature.  

The weather is regarded as a chaotic system, which makes long term weather forcasting virtually impossible.  A small change in initial conditions (like the change a butterfly could make) will create progressively larger changes as time progresses.  As climate is self regulating, the long term average temperature will not be affected by a change in initial conditions.

Answer 4

You can't really model chaos thoery accurately, but by looking at data from similar events in the past you can find some trends and make predictions of the most likely outcome.

Answer 5

Global warming has nothing to do with chaos theory.