Eric, I think it is generally agreed that the Holocene commenced about 12,000 years ago - i.e the modern interglacial. The Younger Dryas occurred at the transition - merely an example amongst many of abrupt climate change. Abrupt changes are by definition nonlinear chaotic oscillations. As in Alastair's comment - 'So much hubris that even Judith Curry (JC) won't admit the climate is chaotic. She blames the non-linear fluctuations on cycles.' A dynamic response to small changes in initial conditions perhaps?
I think my exact words were - I don't for a moment minimise the risk of abrupt climate change? Robert On Apr 15, 1:08 pm, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, > > Where did I "Minimize the risk of abrupt climate change"? I think you > need to check your reading comprehension abilities. > You seem to have missed my repeated mention of the possibility of a > shutdown of the THC, which might well happen rather rapidly and thus > appear to be abrupt. Then, too, there's evidence that the THC in the > Greenland Sea did slow or stop in the early 1980's after the Great > Salinity Anomaly, at about the same time your Pacific Oscillation > appeared. I suggest that the change in the Pacific may have been a > result. > > May I also point out also that the Holocene began 10,000 years ago, > not 12,000 and the Younger Dryas was over by then. Yes, the YD began > quickly. But, the forcing which caused the YD was related to the > existence of the ice sheets over Canada, a situation which does not > apply in today's climate. Thus, the rapid shutdown of the THC which > is thought to have resulted from catastrophic flooding can not happen > in the same way. There are, however, other mechanisms which could > produce similar results and many climate models do show a weakening of > the THC as GHGs build up. > > While we are on the subject, there is indirect evidence that there's > been another weakening or shutdown of the THC in the Greenland Sea for > the past 3 winters. Could have had something to do with the exciting > winter which just visited Europe and parts of the Eastern US. Sad to > say, without direct evidence, I can say no more... > > E. S. > --------------- > > > > Robert I Ellison wrote: > > 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.- 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
