But are tipping points predictable? Chaos theory is a simply a metatheory of change in complex systems and a climate 'tipping point' is merely an example of chaotic bifurcation in a complex and dynamical system. Small initial changes lead to a change in one component which drives change in another etc. A 'cascade of powerful mechanisms' leading to a nonlinear climate response. Abrupt climate change, tipping points, chaotic bifurcation and sensitive dependence all have the same meaning.
I think climate is chaotic at all time scales - in the multidecadal timescale as in https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kravtsov/www/downloads/GRL-Tsonis.pdf Major climate shifts around 1910, the mid 1940's, the late 1970's and, in a later paper(Has climate recently shifted? Swanson and Tsonis 2009), 1998/2001. And please note that changes are evident in real world data and are extensively documented in scientific literature. Climate is not chaotic only in the short term - as in weather - but at every scale from ENSO to decades, ice ages and beyond. Climate models are themselves chaotic - http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full.pdf - suffering not only from 'sensitive dependence' but from 'structural instability'. The latter involves chaotic bifurcation as a result of small changes (well within the limits of quantification) of boundary conditions. There is thus no unique solution to the climate problem within the constraints of present day understanding. Modellers pick their best run subjectively and send it to the IPCC where it is graphed along with a number of other subjectively selected 'solutions'. Very average indeed. So we are 'predicting' a chaotic system by means of another, and different, chaotic system? Give me a break. 'The science' has got it wrong at the level of underlying assumptions - mindless repetition of the error leads us nowhere. On Apr 17, 2:10 am, Tom Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > On Apr 13, 9:18 pm, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> > 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. > > A system can be chaotic on a short time frame but it can still > evidence very predictable average behavior over a long time frame. > > I think there is a distinction between a system that has some tipping > points and a system that is chaotic. > > > > > 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 > athttp://groups.google.com/group/globalchange- 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
