Dear Alastair,
> 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?
>
Showing a lack of discrimination as usual. The temperature graphs are
based on oxygen isotopes - not hugely accurate by instrumental
standards but good enough for government work.
See the simple mechanical analogy from the NAS.
'This device illustrates other kinds of behavior that are common in
the climate system. The equilibria illustrated in the top row are
steady, in that the system sits still without moving. But suppose that
the ball in state (a) or (c) is given a gentle push. If the friction
is low, the ball in either case will rattle around for a long time,
but will remain in its original cup. This illustrates the notion of an
unsteady regime—the “left cup” regime and the “right cup” regime. A
strong enough push at the right time could cause a transition between
one regime and the other.
An unusual application of force could cause unexpected behavior. Hit
it hard enough, and the device might do something different from
anything seen before. For example, the arm of the balance might bang
against the table, and the ball could bounce out of the cup and roll
away.
Now imagine that you have never seen the device and that it is hidden
in a box in a dark room. You have no knowledge of the hand that
occasionally sets things in motion, and you are trying to figure out
the system’s behavior on the basis of some old 78-rpm recordings of
the muffled sounds made by the device. Plus, the recordings are badly
scratched, so some of what was recorded is lost or garbled beyond
recognition. If you can imagine this, you have some appreciation of
the difficulties of paleoclimate research and of predicting the
results of abrupt changes in the climate system.'
Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises - p13
You haven't looked at this publication have you? I am simply making a
rational evaluation of the data - what it can say and what it cant.
Your stance on paleoclimatic conditions is akin to arguing about
angels on pinheads. I can't be bothered.
> > 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.
You are making things up as you go along to fit a preconceived agenda
and calling me a denialist. You say that the effect is chaotic making
it difficult to see but temperatures are rising???
Here is Trenberth’s email to Mann…
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D.
Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin
Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The
high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about
18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is
January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on
saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in
the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like
CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated
with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
first time since Sept 2007.see[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/
GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c urrent.ppt
Kevin
You can put any spin you like on the lack of warming - but denying it
is simply cognitive dissonance.
Cheers
Robert
--
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
