Fergus wrote:
>
> I read Gavin's point as being that reducing an artificially-generated
> instability by introducing an equal and opposite force which is also
> an instability may be a bad idea. What would be better would be to
> remove the original source of the problem; get the idiot to sit down,
> as it were.
I don't think "instability" really comes into it. He's really saying
that given a strong external forcing with somewhat unpredictable (but
probably significant) results, the "safest" thing to do, if one is
worried about the consequences, is to reduce the forcing rather than try
to design a roughly equal but opposite forcing to cancel it out. I think
invoking chaos as a justification for this is a bit of a stretch - after
all, we claim to be able to predict climate changes due to external
forcing pretty well on the grossest scales (certainly temperature
anyway). We also have several historical experiments to tell us what
large injections of sulphate aerosols do to the climate system.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
