On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:52 PM, jdannan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But integrating over time serves much the same purpose as integrating
> over an ensemble (as long as the climate change is slow enough). Hence
> 30y normals...I agree it's not formally identical in a nonstationary
> system, but the issue is how much error is introduced by the
> approximation. I think it is rarely the case that the next year of
> weather would be distinguishable from the distribution over the previous
> 30.
>
Well, it's the best we can do, I suppose, and for the present it appears
adequate.
I'm not sure how well we can decide the question in a more general
sense. Much depends on the ocean in theory and in practice. If the ocean
changes slowly compared to 30 years then the conventional definition of
climate change makes a rough sort of sense.
But sudden readjustments (over a year or two) of the ocean aren't all that
unlikely as the forcing gets sufficiently large. If something of that sort
starts to happen the distinction between climate and weather blurs.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
