Eric, You want to limit the topic to 69 Swedish scientists? LOL. As you know, I think the reality is abrupt climate change rather than global warming as such. I don't minimise for a moment the risk of abrupt climate change but many others will - as does the 'ultra conservative' blog I linked to. They are, however, right about climate change and complex systems and the Swedish scientists are wrong about global warming. Far from being unsupported - there are thousands of papers that document abrupt climate change at all timescales. Everyone knows about it but it just doesn't seem to translate often enough into the only reasonable theory possible. FYI - the Curry article was introduced by another but contains valid points (which you need to take on board) nonetheless.
A few minor points. 1. There may be a groupthink amongst 69 Swedish left wing liberal 'climatologists' that the IPCC is right but if the IPCC is wrong - as they are at the level of underlying assumptions (assuming a steady evolution of climate this century rather than abrupt change) - then the groupthink is merely 'naive hubris' stemming from self delusion and a lack of scepticism. 2. There are major year to year swings in climate - influenced primarily by ENSO - itself a complex system. There are even larger shifts at 2 to 3 decade intervals. The 1976/1977 'Great Pacific Climate Shift' is an extraordinarily well documented case in point but there are many others. 3. The Holocene commenced some 12,000 years ago at the end of the last glacial period. There was a major abrupt shift since to near glacial conditions and back again (10's of degrees in Ireland over as little as months) known as the Younger Dryas which lasted for 1300 years. A quick reference to Holocene temperature at Wikepedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png - shows that Holocene climate 'stability' is an illusion - or delusion - take your pick. You say that climate in the Holocene doesn’t vary enough to demonstrate climate instability? You’re being absurd. 4. Abrupt climate change rather than the steady evolution of global warming is the reality. But my point is that a foolish clinging to the global warming paradigm will undermine the case for emission reductions for a generation or 2 - as I suggested prior to the link to the 'ultra conservative' blog. Climate is potentially much more unstable than thought by most until now. 5. I don't know how to turn this around until people such as yourself accept that climate is a complex and dynamic system which is chaotic (in the sense of chaos theory) in nature at all time scales. The IPCC for instance accepts that 'weather' is chaotic but says that the average of chaotic states (climate) is not chaotic - at least at the scale of the instrumental record. It is so obviously wrong that I can't characterise it as anything other than delusional. The first article I came across (in 1990) which documented an abrupt climate change was on flood and drought dominated regimes in Australia. A couple of geomorphologists noticed that streams had changed shape after the mid 1970's. This is a result of large and abrupt changes in rainfall regimes. It is associated with conditions in the Pacific of course - conditions which influence both rainfall and temperature globally. These are abrupt (and major) shifts in climate at multi-decadal timescales – a property of a complex and dynamic system rather than of simple physics. I suggest that you have another look at the Curry article (and more) rather than calling me a denialist sprouting unsupported views. I am just trying to be absolutely unmistakable - until people get the new climate paradigm they're sprouting groupthink bullshit, reality will continue to diverge from theory and we will make no progress on emissions reductions. Do you want to take the risk that I'm wrong or do you want to start to understand how complex systems theory applies to climate? Robert On Apr 15, 1:33 am, 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.- Hide quoted > > > text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
