Predictive Chaos

A common argument in the current debate about global climate is that the Earth climate system is chaotic and so cannot be computationally modeled and predicted. The argument is used to question alarmistic predictions of climate change, but also open to unrestricted alarmism in the sense that anything can happen from virtually nothing. 

Basic examples of chaotic systems are (i) coin tossing and (ii) turbulent fluid motion. In both cases pointwise prediction in space and time is impossible, but mean-values can be predicted with high precision. In coin tossing with a perfect coin the quotient of number of heads and tails quickly approach 1 as the number of tosses increases. The drag and lift as mean-values in space and time of the forces on an airplane wing subject to turbulent flow of air, can be accurately computationally predicted by solving the Navier-Stokes equations. This is the subject of the monumental treatise Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow. See also previous posts under label chaotic system.  

How is it possible that mean-values can be accurately computed but point-values not? The reason is that turbulent flow is (like the weather) fluctuating with alternating ups and downs (like the motion of a tossed coin before landing). Therefore mean-values can be predicted by computational simulation of the fluctuations without asking for point-wise accuracy. 

We understand that chaotic motion as fluctuating turbulent motion in a certain sense is more predictive than non-fluctuating motion like that of a pen left in upright position.

While the weather as pointwise chaotic motion is not predictable over more than a week, climate as mean value of weather changes only slowly and so can be predictive, more or less. For example, we can well expect to enter into a new ice age within hundreds of years as an effect of major factors like the orbit of the Earth. 

Stock markets appear chaotic, yet can be predicted over time using models including major relevant factors. 

In any case, reference to chaotic systems as being unpredictable can be misleading and so has to be qualified.  

PS This post connects to the previous post on the unfortunate present formulation of the Navier-Stokes Clay Millennium Problem forgetting the completely foundational aspect of well-posedness in the sense of small output effects of small perturbations, which is a property of turbulent solutions of Navier-Stokes equations: Drag and lift of a wing remain the same under small perturbations of incoming flow and geometry. The present formulation appears to confuse smoothness with well-posedness.