Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, former Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University and internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes.
Why is it so difficult to make precipitation forecasts fifty years into the future? Most precipitation in the middle latitudes is associated with low-pressure systems, which move along storm tracks carved out by the jet stream. The ever-shifting meanders in the jet stream occur at the edge of the slab of cold air over the poles. The specialists call this slab the Polar Vortex, and have christened the meandering behavior of the jet stream in the Northern hemisphere the Arctic Oscillation. Thirty years ago I worked with Mike (John M.) Wallace and his PhD student N.C. Lau at the University of Washington in Seattle on problems concerning eddy-flux maintenance in the North Atlantic storm track. It is evident to all turbulence specialists that the dynamics of very slowly evolving states is different from the dynamics of instantaneous states. So the moment one asks what keeps the jet stream going, one encounters the kind of problem that is at the core of all turbulence research. But the mainstream of dynamic meteorology refuses to study the slow evolution of the general circulation. It has become so easy to run General Circulation Models on supercomputers that most atmospheric scientists shy away from matters like a thorough study of the interaction between the Polar Vortex and the Arctic Oscillation. Mike Wallace mailed me a year ago, saying that there is not a beginning of consensus on a theory of the Arctic Oscillation. This was one of the highlights in an advanced senior-citizens’ class on climate change I taught a year ago. It was announced as “A Storm in the Greenhouse”, referring primarily to the increasingly bitter debates of the past fifteen years.
How does this problem affect climate forecasts? If there is not even a rudimentary theory of the Polar Vortex, much less an established relation between rising greenhouse gas concentrations and systematic changes in the Arctic Oscillation, one cannot possibly make inferences about changes in precipitation patterns. We do not know, and for the time being cannot know anything about changing patterns of clouds, storms and rain. Holland’s national weather service KNMI circumvented this impasse last year by issuing climate change scenarios with and without changes in the position of the North Atlantic storm track. It did not occur to the KNMI spokesmen that they should have been forthright about their lack of knowledge. They should have said: we know nothing of possible changes in the storm track, so we cannot say anything about precipitation. But it is entirely consistent with the IPCC tradition to weasel around such issues. One of my contacts at KNMI recently explained to me that their choice was based on the increasing agreement between simulations run with different GCM’s. I had to answer that the IPCC spirit of consensus apparently was invading their supercomputers as well. It is bad enough that computer simulations cannot be checked against observations until after the fact. In the absence of a robust stochastic-dynamic theory of the general circulation, one cannot even check climate simulations against fundamental insights.
[…]
I want to lobby for decency, modesty, honesty, integrity and balance in climate research. I hope and pray we lose our obsession with climate forecasting. Climate simulations are best seen as sensitivity experiments, not as tools for policy makers.
Read the whole thing.
Thank you Kate – a wonderful article. Based on science, with its requirement for data, for reason, for logic and also, for an admission of fallibility. Not speculation, which rejects incompleteness and fallibility. Not computer simulations which are only as good as the data fed into them and therefore, can’t deal with unknown data and incompleteness.
To be a “climate change denier” its my understanding it isn’t limited to bare ignorant rants of denial, but the category also includes reputable sceintists pointing out fundamental flaws in climate prediction methodology and the noting of a real lack of research in critical areas from where conclusions are drawn.
It even appears to include applying basic notions of theory testing and scientific skepticism by peer review, which has been the hallmark of scientific development over the last two centuries.
Sorry Kate, but that means this guy is likely a “climate change denier”.
All of which begs the question. How many flipping holes are there in the Greenhouse? As someone who is a casual observer in this argument I can’t keep track of them all anymore.
The secondary question is, and how come the MSM can’t seem get their heads around even a few?
Ignoring the evidence or not looking at all of the evidence on a subject is the very definition of ideology. Something the media and scientists like to say they avoid like the plague but obviously don’t.
I’m not sure I like the tone of this…are you engaging in a sacrilege of the fruit fly priest? Dare you mock his divinely inspired green ministry? He preaches the revealed word of the Prophets(“Profits”?) from the book of Gore and the book of Moe…His word is written on tablets by the sacred CBC temple’s pharisees…long live the church of the sacred hot air of the latter day fruit fly.
When this promised climate apocolypse never materializes I hope people remember and mercilessly marginalize the mercinary hysterics like Preacher Dave, Chairman Moe and doctor of climate divinity Gore…these people are serious hysteria mongers… disruptors of society who need to be be dealt with with something more substantial than polite dismissal.
If AL GORE was realy interested in stopping this so called GLOBAL WARMING he would keep his mouth shut stop going all over the world and stop producing all that HOT AIR
Wouldn’t that big hole in the ozone the same people used to scare us with dire bedtime stories about, let all this nasty co2 out. Hard to take these clowns seriously when their scary bedtime stories on the Commie Broadcaster Corp. start overlapping like this. Whats next frog farts disrupting earth as the toads know it! Think of all the hospitals and arenas and athletic parks and technological breakthroughs that we will never see if we keep wasting billions on this big lie, climate change. If these IDIOTS had one ounce of common sense they would put up 25 million dollar prizes to University/Tech colleges etc. to come up with motors that get better gas mileage/ scrubbers for smokestacks/ filters for exaust systems etc. but oh no they are the enlightened ones, they know more than us non-believers. Well so the Greeks and Romans had the same fools in their societies and we all know the results there.
Biff:
I can see that subjectivity and lack of understanding are genetic traits in the climate warming cult. If you had read the article with any ibjectivity and understanding the author is not “denying” climate change. He does however question the modeling and long range forcasting processes for not including a number of important variables which would skew the results if they were used. He seems to take exception to modeling proceedures that are driven by agendas to have the results fit with a preconcieved theory instead of objectively seeking the truth regardless of what theory the results support.
I fail to see how calls for scientific objectivity in experimenting in climate forcasting models qualifies as “climate change denial”…then again I have no political or ideological currency invested in this climate hysteria like many do.
WL,
That was pure sarcasm. My point being that climate change denial includes the very premise of scientific scrutiny.
Which means, climate change denial is meaningless as an attack.
Also according to your expert: “Hurricane Katrina was not a major hurricane event for New Orleans.”
Laughable. HAW!
Eloquent, sensible, and calm.
And most importantly, bang on. Not a so-called “denier”, but a true scientist–questioning, challenging, stating the faults and errors in the experiments (models). For the most part.
I suppose it was for brevity, but he didn’t mention one other piece of this puzzle that will actually make it impossible to resolve climate models, ever: computers use explicit finite differencing and finite summing techniques to solve non-finite derivatives and integral equations. Computers cannot explicitly solve such equations. So the model output will only, at the very best, be an “approximation” to what the future state of the climate might be.
Sorry Biff; used to dealing with so many partisan trolls…your dry wit is noted for any future posts 😉
I find wit is best served dry.
The West has been trying to invalidate Christianity
but what do you replace Christ and God with. Al Gore
the cleansing of the all the worlds sins Al Gore the new messiah. Al Gore has saved you from yourself fall to your knees and worship him.
Who needs to be president when you can be the next Christ. Alas he has competition though it seems Tom Cruise is applying for the job as well and hey hes pretty.
I’m still waiting for the flu “pandemic”.
What’s up with that? Has it been bumped for climate change as the current trend of the month?
And Y2K..and mutant turkeys..and dead chickens..and
massive earthquakes…and… ah… forget it.
Tennekes doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Anyone who watches the news knows that cientists today are almost unanimous on the issue of climate change, and that furthermore, this near-unanimity has remained a constant over the last 30-40 years.
This is from Newsweek, in 1975:
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now…”
“To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions but they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climate uncertainty…The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
We didn’t act then, but at least we’re starting to act now. The People are starting to realize that we cannot afford to delay taking wealth-redistribution measures to control the climate, because no measure is too extreme when the future of the earth is at stake.
The bottom line is that is doesn’t matter whether we cover arctic ice with black soot to prevent global cooling, or hobble our economy to prevent global warming, the point is that we have to act now. Scientists are still near-unanimous that cooling/warming is occuring; the only question is whether government leaders are prepared to take the “simple measures” needed to deal with the issue.
I think that this climate change hysteria will shake itself out – it just takes a little patience and a little guts to stand up to it – which this blog is trying to do.
Peter Worthington, in the Toronto Sun (a MSM thing), presented a common sense sceptical article on climate change. I’m sure a lot of people read this.
I saw a bite from a Bill O’Reilly thing with Dennis Miller (I think this is MSM as well). Miller was sceptical – his angle was that the average guy ain’t that stupid and they ain’t necessarily lemmings.
So I think that we are starting to see the rebuttals happen and responsible scientists making sure that people understand where these models and estimates come from and can weigh the real evidence.
Also according to your expert: “Hurricane Katrina was not a major hurricane event for New Orleans.”
Laughable. HAW!
Actually, if you had paid attention to what you were reading, the Katrina article on that blog was based on the work of Herbert S. Saffir and had nothing at all to do with Hendrik Tennekes work. In fact, Hendrik Tennekes has nothing to do with the blog itself, his piece (like the Saffir one) was a guest blog entry.
As to the article itself, it would seem to indicate that New Orleans has not yet experienced its “worst case” hurricane and that much of the hurricane-related damage may have been due to inadequate design and code controls. I would think this information would be very valuable as to those wishing to build a safe community in that area again.
we lose our obsession with climate forecasting. Climate simulations are best seen as sensitivity experiments, not as tools for policy makers.
This should be stapled to the forehead of every moonbat standing in line for their share of this blatant cash grab.
“…starting to realize that we cannot afford to delay taking wealth-redistribution measures to control the climate…”
“…Scientists are still near-unanimous that cooling/warming is occuring;…”
>>Posted by: EBD at February 14, 2007 11:46 AM
To EBD (note I just posted a comment before I saw your comment);
First of all, read the IPCC Summary report for Policymakers
http://www.ipcc/ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
Don’t listen to out of context sound bites from the report.
Real scientists thrive on argument and discussion because it helps them get to the truth.
People really act when they really understand something and it is verifiable. For example, our cars run much cleaner today than 10 years ago; sales of SUVs are way down because of the economics of oil. I put 95% of my garbage in either the compost box, the blue box for glass and plastics, or the other blue box for paper – we recycle everything now. In my area, their trying to build an ultra modern clean incinerator to get rid of land fills.
People really do a lot when they understand the problems – with Climate Change we clearly do not understand the problem.
“The West has been trying to invalidate Christianity but what do you replace Christ and God with Al Gore the cleansing of the all the worlds sins Al Gore the new messiah. Al Gore has saved you from yourself fall to your knees and worship him.”
What a profound statement! The West (more accurately the anti-Christian left) is replacing the primacy of God, who is immeasurably powerful by Christian doctrine, with the powerful human who can change climate, indeed the planet. Climate used to be the purview of God; now man is that powerful, apparently. (BTW I don’t believe it). There seems to be a logical link here.
Global warming is happening now… but it could turn into global cooling soon tool. The problem is that the looney left is leading this parade and they are politically and economically motivated and don’t know what they are talking about. ‘Fear politics’ does not solve real problems.
Yoop, when I wrote that “whether we cover arctic ice with black soot to prevent global cooling, or hobble our economy to prevent global warming, the point is that we have to act now” I thought it was clear that I was mocking the idiocy of activist-doomsayers.
For a superb overview of the history of media coverage (cooling/warming/cooling/warming) of climate issues, go to
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
I hope Kate realizes that by bringing attention to scientists like Mr. Tennekes, she is almost certainly endangering or contributing to the endangerment of their careers.
The environuts have made it plenty clear that they will not tolerate people who speak (whether the tone is neutral or critical) of facts that can be used in any way to raise questions about the climate-change “consensus”.
“Yoop, when I wrote that “whether we cover arctic ice with black soot to prevent global cooling, or hobble our economy to prevent global warming, the point is that we have to act now” I thought it was clear that I was mocking the idiocy of activist-doomsayers.
Posted by: EBD at February 14, 2007 1:00 PM”
The tougue-in-cheek was not that evident to me. I’m still not sure if it is.
there is only one economy going to be hobbled- Canaduh.
this is the only country with an inclining population , freezing cold weather, enormous distances , developing export industry, energy supplier that signed on to reduce emmissions. of course the high priests of the movement -Dr Suzuki live in the most temperate part of the country and jetset on “grin ‘house gaz credits” and good will all over the planet.
other signatories like China, India signed on with open ended emmission allowances and open ended reciever bank accounts. Austrailia , a warm climate but energy exporter got away with being called a developing nation and are not restricted.
@ Denis.
Good point. Hendrik Tennekes’ anti-prediction stance contradicts Herbert S. Saffir’s sage-like warning of the coming “worst case” in NO. All in the name of science, I guess.
But the fact is Katrina WAS a major hurricane event. I’m not trying to censure anyone, but it’s dumb to think otherwise. It doesn’t matter how far Saffir can see into the future.
Saying Katrina was not a major hurricane in New Orleans is like saying WTC was not a major terrorist attack for NYC, because there is likely to be worse terrorist attacks. Dumb.
Is David Suzuki a climatologist? Do his devotees ever question his credentials when he offers his views on the subject? And yet here’s how the Suzuki crowd try and smear Dr. Tennekes:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1278
Is David Suzuki a climatologist? Do his devotees ever question his credentials when he offers his views on the subject? And yet here’s how the Suzuki crowd try and smear Dr. Tennekes:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1278
“…….But it is entirely consistent with the IPCC tradition to weasel around such issues. ”
Says it all!
how come al gore sez sea level will rise 20 feet in 100 yrs and the IPCC says 88cm?
where is the consensus.
Good point. Hendrik Tennekes’ anti-prediction stance contradicts Herbert S. Saffir’s sage-like warning of the coming “worst case” in NO. All in the name of science, I guess.
I don’t see the contradiction. As near as I can tell Saffir is simply saying this wasn’t that big of a hurricane, for safety you should be ready for a bigger one.
But the fact is Katrina WAS a major hurricane event. I’m not trying to censure anyone, but it’s dumb to think otherwise. It doesn’t matter how far Saffir can see into the future.
Saying Katrina was not a major hurricane in New Orleans is like saying WTC was not a major terrorist attack for NYC, because there is likely to be worse terrorist attacks. Dumb.
Yes, Katrina had a huge impact and was absolutely devastating to New Orleans. Nowhere is this denied.
However, looking at the context, this article is dealing with the damaging effects of the hurricane winds – it does not look at floodwater damage which was the most significant destructive factor. In examining the strength of the winds and the resulting damage, the conclusion was drawn that more wind damage existed than should have occurred given the relative strength of the hurricane on landfall. Therefore, the hurricane itself (not the resulting floodwaters) was not a major hurricane – given the wind speed data available it was in the Category 1/2 range on landfall.
Actually, after re-reading the article, the following statement I made is wrong: “As near as I can tell Saffir is simply saying this wasn’t that big of a hurricane, for safety you should be ready for a bigger one.”
It looks like the blogger, Roger Pielke Sr., made the point I was referring to, not Herbert S. Saffir. Pielke’s reproduction of Saffir’s summary ended before this statement was made.
2 words: Chaos Theory…
Was a really big thing a while back. Try reading “Does God Play Dice” or one of the other similar texts. Very illuminating…
JCL
“We do not know, and for the time being cannot know anything about changing patterns of clouds, storms and rain.” – Tennekes
“As near as I can tell Saffir is simply saying this wasn’t that big of a hurricane, for safety you should be ready for a bigger one.” – Denis
You should be ready for a bigger one? You mean, since one is coming? You mean, someone is predicting the changing patterns of storms?
And according to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, and not just wind speed, Katrina was at least 3/4, classifying it as major (major = anything over 3).
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/pub/al122005.public.023.shtml
Anyway, point being, University of Colorado group blogs throw around the term “internationally recognized” too much.
“We do not know, and for the time being cannot know anything about changing patterns of clouds, storms and rain.” – Tennekes
“As near as I can tell Saffir is simply saying this wasn’t that big of a hurricane, for safety you should be ready for a bigger one.” – Denis
You should be ready for a bigger one? You mean, since one is coming? You mean, someone is predicting the changing patterns of storms?
Please see my correction above, it wasn’t Saffir who made the implicit prediction.
And according to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, and not just wind speed, Katrina was at least 3/4, classifying it as major (major = anything over 3).
Lets see, according to the NHC which you are using for your information, the description of the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale states: “Wind speed is the determining factor in the scale”. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshs.shtml
So its a good thing you are not only looking at wind speed, but are looking at a scale whose value is determined by wind speed 🙂
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/pub/al122005.public.023.shtml
Please note this bulletin was issued before it made landfall – if you had picked a different bulletin while the hurricane was still in the Gulf you could have “shown” it was a Category 5.
While it did make landfall at Category 3 strength in Buras, Louisiana, by the time it reached New Orleans it had been yet again downgraded to a weaker hurricane. If you go to the NHC’s full report, instead of the individual archived bulletins, you will find this (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf). For example:
“While the intensity of Katrina was Category 3 as the center of the eye made its closest approach (about 20 n mi) to the east of downtown New Orleans, the strongest winds corresponding to that intensity were likely present only over water to the east of the eye. The sustained winds over all of metropolitan New Orleans and Lake Pontchartrain likely remained weaker than Category 3 strength.”
“Overall, it appears likely that most of the city of New Orleans experienced sustained surface winds of Category 1 or Category 2 strength.”
I will reiterate my point. The original article was examining the effects of the hurricane itself (not the flooding caused by the storm surge and breached levies), specifically the wind damage that occurred. In this context, they seem to be correct to point out this was not a major hurricane. New Orleans felt the effect of a Category 1/2 hurricane.
Anyway, point being, University of Colorado group blogs throw around the term “internationally recognized” too much.
If he isn’t “internationally recognized”, why are you referring to the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale which was initially developed by Herbert Saffir when he was doing work for the United Nations.
Comment #21 on the Tennekes page is pure poetry. And wise advice.
here is something from the psuedoauthority on everything kneel macdonald. no mention here of the largest scandal in canadian history – ADSCAM- Quebacksheesh.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/macdonald/20070214.html
CBCpravda- sometimes you even surprise yourselves.
“”how come al gore sez sea level will rise 20 feet in 100 yrs and the IPCC says 88cm?””
It’s easy using Gore/IPCC math:
Subtract ~20 feet from ~100 Years and you get ~80cm – roughly; computer models you know.
Next question…and make it a little tougher, we have credibility at stake here.
What has never come up in these discussions, and I was suddenly struck by the significance of this, is that the vast majority of people who are firm believers in Y2Kyoto junk science are of the opinion that the earth’s climate is a linear system. The whole Kyoto ideology is based on this assumption; if the earth has mean temperature T at CO2 concentration C, then at a future date the earths mean temperature Tnew = k*(C + dC). Argument seems to be about the value of k whereas no-one seems to be questioning why the description of a non-linear chaotic system such as the earth’s climate is assumed to be a simple linear equation.
Much of early chaos theory arose from studies of fluid dynamics and the Lorenz attractor is probably the best known strange attractor around. Chaotic systems are by definition highly sensitive to initial conditions and thus, for all practical purposes unpredictable. If one ignores local weather, one can model mean earth temperature, but I don’t care about mean earth temperature, I care about the temperature of the tiny patch of the earth where I happen to live. What I’d be interested in seeing is the range of variability one gets with the various computer models and I suspect that there are huge local variations ranging from much hotter than average to much colder than average for any given part of the earth for each run of a given model starting with slightly different initial conditions.
Having been exposed to chaos theory for over 20 years now, I too often forget that most people can’t concieve of anything beyond linear relationships. Chaotic systems do unexpected things and the human body is a chaotic system. I’ve given up trying to explain this concept to certain patients who are under the impression that their particular disease must have a cause and while demonic posession is little seen now, patients are ready to latch onto multiple chemical sensitivity and other crackpot theories that are far simpler for them to fathom than chaotic dynamics in physiologic systems. If anyone has any better ideas about how to put this concept across, I’d be glad to hear of it. The first person who can express the underlying fallacy of the linear Kyoto model in a manner readily understandable to a majority of the population will be famous (or reviled by so-called environmentalists).
“no mention here of the largest scandal in canadian history ”
cal2, thanks for the link to neal macdonald’s piece on the place of bribery in Iraq’s economy. The most interesting part is his debunking of a Democrat’s bluster regarding 12 billion “missing” American dollars, supposedly sent to Iraq by Washington with no audit trail in place. It turns out that the 12 billion was money seized by the US from Iraqi oil accounts; it wasn’t American money in the first place. Washington earmarked 12 billion of seized Iraqi oil assets for the greasing of Iraqi palms.
So, as I read the piece, it’s most salient point is the quiet mockery of the Dem’s outrage.
All very interesting. But tell me… why the heck would Adscam have belonged in this article? He’s writing about Iraq, the middle east, its traditions of bribery, and the distaste Westerners feel when confronted by these demands.
What am I missing? Why don’t I see the “pravda” in this mildly engaging report? Enlighten me, please.
its in the explanation of baksheesh and in this paragraph – substitute Canadians for Iraqis , officials as the liberal government and the US contractors as the liberal party , scale it at the usual 10:1 and its the same story as ADSCAM-
but Neal was never bothered by ADSCAM- because he only does anti- American stories. CBCpravda.
and here is the paragraph to substitute into.
Because the billions in loose cash, it turned out, belonged to Iraqis in the first place: U.S. officials during the initial occupation government seized it from Saddam’s oil accounts and were, in effect, throwing it back at the population like so much confetti, hoping some would cling to the right places. (If some were to land in the pockets of U.S. contractors along the way, so much the better.)
and here Ive done it for you. Quebaksheesh
Because the hundred million in loose cash, it turned out, belonged to Canadians in the first place: the Liberal government during the initial occupation seized it from the federal accounts and were, in effect, throwing it back at the population like so much confetti, hoping some would cling to the right places. (If some were to land in the pockets of liberal supporters along the way, so much the better.)
cal2 – ok, nicely done.
Still – whatever NM’s past sins, it seemed to me that this piece was, if anything, mildly “anti-anti-American”. Also, to bring in adscam would have been rather OT.
Which, come to think of it, is what we are in what I now recall is a suzuki thread… cheers
I thought the most interesting part in the piece lay in the discussion by the modellers and fluid dynamicists. It’s interesting that attempts to model the monsoon have been spectacularly unsuccessful, and that, in fact, there may not be any means to model the earth’s climate given the limitations of existing mathematics, and knowledge of fluid dynamics nor will there be for the forseeable future. It’s one more nail in the IPCC’s coffin. By claiming to be able to model earth’s climate many years into the future, the claimants are simply advertising how utterly full of s@%t they are.
Pardon my nitpicking Loki, but that would be T2 = T1 + k × ( C2 – C1 ), where k is in units of °K-m³/mole (or equivalent).
Not nitpicking at all Vitruvius, your equation is more correct. Both linear relationships are, however, inappropriate descriptions of a non-linear system except for very small changes in CO2 concentration where one can make a reasonable assumption of linearity.
Agreed, Loki. Not only do almost all of the people debating these issues not understand the matter of chaotic dynamics as now studied by the hard sciences (often poo-pooing it as some sort of “chaos theory” with religious connotations), they don’t even understand basic time-series analysis. We would all be better off if people understood “Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control”, by Box and Jenkins, 1976 (ISBN 0-8162-1104-3), especially chapter 12, “Design of Feedforward and Feedback Control Schemes.”
But that’s not going to happen. So, instead, we are stuck with H. L Mencken’s observation that “Democracy is the notion that the citizens know what they want, and they deserve to get it good and hard.”