Michael Lewis wrote:
> The problem is not climate denialists against climate alarmists.
That's correct, if one is strictly interested in science. So, why do
you repeatedly refer to "alarmist" as if they were the same as the
group who are scientists? Al Gore is not a scientist. Scientists
don't have millions of dollars to spend on PR campaigns and to engage
in politics.
> The problem is that non-linear, chaotic complex adaptive systems are
> being analyzed and interpreted as linear systems.
I don't know where you got those ideas. Especially the adaptive part
as it relates to climate. No one I know of has suggested that the
Stefan-Boltzmann equation was linear. Nor is the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere a linear function of temperature. The
spectral emission lines experience pressure broadening which changes
as a function of altitude. The amount of energy in a moving fluid
increases with the cube of the velocity. Where is the linearity?
> The linear interpretation says, "If you push something hard enough,
> it will fall over."
>
> The non-linear, chaotic complex adaptive system replies, "If you
> push something hard enough, it may fall over, or it may fall toward you,
> or it may sprout wings and fly away, or it may sit there and politely
> ignore you."
That there are likely to be discontinuities within the overall system
is rather obvious, given the known changes switching from glacial to
inter-glacial conditions. Evidence points to a switch in the process
which drives the Thermohaline Circulation as one example.
> Complex adaptive systems are unpredictable. Therefore linear
> mathematical models can never predict complex adaptive systems reactions
> to specific input. The further down the timeline one attempts
> predictions, the farther off they will be.
That's why the experiments with models involve using the same model as
the control and the experimental change. That lessens the impacts of
the differences between the model and reality. In any event, the time
line is also impacted by the fact that the future rate of emissions is
an unknown. That's the reason that the model experiments have all
used the same set of emission scenarios over time, which removes that
unknown from the problem. Sensitivity experiments have been performed
by varying different parameters to ascertain the impacts of the
models' basic assumptions, which cover the expected range of those
parameters.
> We can't predict glacier melting 200 years downstream because we
> can't know if present trends will continue. We could be just as easily
> in the next glacial advance in 200 years. After all, it WILL start
> sometime. From the look of past patterns, glacial advance follow abrupt
> warming, then cooling.
I think it's obvious that what humanity does to the Earth will be
superimposed on the natural changes which might eventually cause the
return of glacial conditions for another 100,000 years. Humanity has
already had considerable impact on the natural world, having changed
his environment for thousands of years, which is another area of
active research. To assume that the a repeat of the forces which
started the last period of Ice Age conditions will of necessity result
in another Ice Age if now repeated is another unknown, as mankind's
impacts may have precluded the start of that next round of glacier
growth. Or, it may be that what we do could result in the start of
another Ice Age, even though the latest models do not make this
projection. I think it's possible that the Thermohaline Circulation
is changing and this may result in one of those "tipping points",
i.e., a threshold event, which would change the Earth's weather in
ways human civilization has never experienced.
If you think climate is so chaotic that the future can not be
predicted, then, tell us why you would want to take the risk inherent
in changing the basic optical parameters of the atmosphere?
E. S.
---
--
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
