I first of all quote the National Academy of Science - it seems worth doing again for those who are a little slow on the uptake.
'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 behaviour 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.' There are holes in the modern record let alone the paleoclimatic. I then quote a group email from Kevin Trenberth to many of the leading lights of climate research on the 'lack of recent warming'. Try following the discussion here - http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1255523796.txt - have a think especially about some of the many shortfalls of the modern record mentioned in the transcript. That would be the lack of warming from January 1999 to January 2010 (in any of the monthly records) and potential for non warming to continue for another decade or so. Oh I forgot - it is the warmest decade on record!!! Fools and charlatans more likely. More clearly relevant is the 'synchonised chaos' of Tsonis - one of those scientific publications I started this discussion with. It is clear that climate shifted again in 1998/2001 to a cooler phase even if the internal climate dynamics remain obscure. For a more theoretical exposition – try the McWilliams 2007 – which again I have linked to. So you have a new term that is not likely to catch on? It is hardly applicable even. Both sides of fence are wrong. There is instead abrupt climate change at scales from ENSO to ice ages and beyond. Not simple cause and effect - but small changes in initial conditions leading to an internal and nonlinear changes in dust, ice, biology, cloud, etc. You continue to ignore evidence for a preconceived reality - how very Struthio camelus like of you. On Feb 8, 4:00 am, Phil Hays <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 13:58 -0800, Robert Indigo Ellison wrote: > > 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. > > That's rather betroffenheitstroll of you. "Make the perfect the enemy of > the good." Of course, there are no ways of verification of these > temperature graphs, as there is no information about glacier extents, > past tree lines, pollen and other plant and animal fossils of various > sorts... at least on your world. > > > 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. > > What lack of warming are you talking about? > > -- > Phil Hays <[email protected]> -- 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
