On Feb 5, 9:52 pm, Robert Indigo Ellison <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Dear Alistair,
>
> Facile and specious reasoning. You assume that the details of events
> that happened 12,000 years ago can be known with any certainty. Some
> things are known approximately through proxies. Many elements can't
> be known with any confidence. You need to assess the quality of data
> and the limits of knowledge. You construct scenarios based on one
> dimensional concepts of climate dynamics.
That put the denialist argument pretty well. Because you don't know
what happened 12,000 years ago no one else can. You replicated a chart
of temperature over the last 14,000 years. Are you saying it can not
be trusted? On what grounds?
Of course I am giving a one dimensional view of climate science. A
multi-dimensional view would be incomprehensible. I am picking out
what I consider to be the main dimension. If you disagree then explain
what you consider it is. Your denialism will get us no where.
> There are multiple equilibria - it is not stable but jumps around
> unpredictably. It is by theory 'chaotic'. There are no bounds unless
> by which you mean 'strange attractors'. But there is no guarantee
> even that climate phase space is stable. "Stable with bounds' is an
> absurd characterisation.
It can only be in one equilibrium at a time. When it is in such a
stable state it remains there until it is forced out. So the climate
does not jump into another state, it is pushed (forced). The first
problem is to identify those forcings, such as rising CO2 levels.
Then once the system leaves one stable state it will eventually move
to another, and it will remain there until a new forcing happens, or
the original one becomes more or less intense.
In other words the climate phase space has multiple stable regions -
attractors. But some are strange attractors which stable within
bounds.
> The political problem is that the planet is not warming as a result of
> 1 possible equilibria state - the possibility is that this will
> continue for another decade or 2. Both sides are wrong in this debate
> because you insist on thinking in terms of simple cause and effect.
It is a matter of simple cause and effect. The problem is that the
effect is chaotic which makes it difficult for the man in the street
to see what is happening. The climate is a strange attractor, with a
mean temperature that can be measured and is rising.
Just stop think about it. A little less facile and specious reasoning
from you would be much appreciated.
Cheers, Alastair.
--
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
