Eric, Robert's oil man was saying the same as Judith Curry - the scientists suffer from too much hubris! So much hubris that even Judith Curry (JC) won't admit the climate is chaotic. She blames the non-linear fluctuations on cycles.
Note, there ARE swings from year to year in global and more so in local climate. El Nino and hurricanes are examples of that. Just because we have a name for them does not mean that they are not example of chaos. On a macro-climatic scale, the end of the LGM, and the start and end of the Younger Dryas were all violent changes. While parts of the earth remain glaciated there is every possibility of yet another violent change of that order happening again. BTW, if you want to see chaos in action visit slide 13 of this presentaion by JC http://ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/October252005JudithCurry.pdf But a lot of what JC says is true. Michael Mann is too young to know that it was Phil Jones who came up with the idea that the cooling during the 1950s and 60s could be explained away using aerosols. Add the right amount for the right time and then you have a nice straight line to blame on CO2. Obviously JC is not fooled, but that does not alter the fact that there was warming in the early and the late parts of the 20gh century. The Arctic sea ice and now the Greenland ice sheet are melting. If we do not REDUCE the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere then every city port in the world will suffer a 20 foot rise in sea level. It may take 100 years but it is unstoppable! How does JC think we are going to persuade the public to take action and give up their automobiles, if the scientist say they have doubts. JC's problem is that, like most of her US compatriots, she is an optimist and believes it will never happen. If you want the truth you have to come to this side of the pond. Our empire has collapsed and our optimism gone with it :-( James Lovelock (JL), like JC, is also skeptical of the science of scientists. He remembers the white washing of the ozone threat, now long forgotten amongst in hubris displayed as a result of the Montreal treaty. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock I have to admit I have not read the whole article but what I have read either agrees with what I already knew or makes sense to me. Enjoy everyone, that's what he recommends! Cheers, Alastair. On Apr 14, 3:33 pm, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, Your response does not follow the thread. The linked article > refers to a pole of climate scientists in SWEDEN! Judith Curry is a US > based researcher. And, you link to a post on the ultra conservative > blog, Redstate.com, written by a person who describes himself as: > "Operations Manager for a small Gulf of Mexico oil & gas explorer & > producer". > > Aren't you just trolling for some sort of recognition of your > unsupported denialist point of view? All your comments about chaos > ignore the fact that if the climate is as unstable as you claim, there > would be large swings year-to-year and any man made changes would > easily set off major changes beyond what's been seen in the climate > record of the Holocene. If the climate system is as unstable as you > appear to believe, then it is major folly to perturb it by adding more > greenhouse gases. That would provide an even more urgent reason for > action to minimize emissions, if true. > > E. S. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Robert I Ellison wrote: > > Judith Curry's bumps and changes in climate must be understood rather > > than simply labelled as natural variability and neglected - as it has > > been for too long and indeed by the IPCC. The IPCC is wrong at the > > level of underlying assumptions about how climate works - ordered and > > simple physics rather than as a complex and dynamic system. The > > 'naive hubris' of the 'scientific consensus' is playing into the hands > > of skeptics. It astonishes me because the climate models are > > themselves chaotic - using as they do the same equations of fluid > > motion that Edward Lorenz did in the 1960's when he discovered chaos > > theory in a model of convection. But it just seems to go right over > > their heads - or in one ear and out the other - for some reason I > > don't care to speculate on other than the usual tragedy of the human > > condition - brought on by the human tendency to self delusion and a > > lack of scientific skepticism. Let's have a show of hands -how many > > believe in simple climate physics? 97%?. You guys have really blown > > it. > > >http://www.redstate.com/vladimir/2010/03/15/antarctic-shrimp-global-w... > > > But chaos theory implies that climate is sensitive to small changes in > > initial conditions - such that there is a risk of sudden and > > catastrophic climate change at any time at all. > > > On Apr 13, 12:04 am, Erik Svensson, Göteborg <[email protected]> wrote: > > >http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2010/04/overwhelming-majority-... > > > > At least in Sweden, is seems like the opinions among climate > > > scientists have not changed due to the 'climategate'-thing. > > -- 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 To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
