Is quoting this an example of not taking climate change seriously??? 'Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all of the earth, locally reaching as much as 10°C change in 10 years. Available evidence suggests that abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies.
This report is an attempt to describe what is known about abrupt climate changes and their impacts, based on paleoclimate proxies, historical observations, and modeling. The report does not focus on large, abrupt causes—nuclear wars or giant meteorite impacts—but rather on the surprising new findings that abrupt climate change can occur when gradual causes push the earth system across a threshold. Just as the slowly increasing pressure of a finger eventually flips a switch and turns on a light, the slow effects of drifting continents or wobbling orbits or changing atmospheric composition may “switch” the climate to a new state. And, just as a moving hand is more likely than a stationary one to encounter and flip a switch, faster earth- system changes—whether natural or human-caused—are likely to increase the probability of encountering a threshold that triggers a still faster climate shift. We do not yet understand abrupt climate changes well enough to predict them.' http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=R5 Or the following. ‘Researchers first became intrigued by abrupt climate change when they discovered striking evidence of large, abrupt, and widespread changes preserved in paleoclimatic archives. Interpretation of such proxy records of climate - for example, using tree rings to judge occurrence of droughts or gas bubbles in ice cores to study the atmosphere at the time the bubbles were trapped -is a well-established science that has grown much in recent years. This chapter summarizes techniques for studying paleoclimate and highlights research results. The chapter concludes with examples of modern climate change and techniques for observing it. Modern climate records include abrupt changes that are smaller and briefer than in paleoclimate records but show that abrupt climate change is not restricted to the distant past.’ US National Academy of Science (2002), Committee on Abrupt Climate Changes, 'Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises' NAP – p19 I referenced McWilliams on climate models. 'Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Godel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation (see ref. 26).' James C. McWilliams PNAS, 2007 'Irreducible imprecision in atmospheric and oceanic simulations' NAP vol. 104 no. 21 8709–8713 I don't know how much clearer 'the science' can get - but unless people start understanding abrupt change in the climate system the 'inevitable surprises' are going to continue to undermine rational emmissions control. I am not the problem here. Eric is the problem with a dogmatic and rather silly insistence of Holocene climate stability, David is the problem with a confident, unsupported and misguided insistance that the conditions for abrupt change no longer hold, you are the problem because you have no appreciation of scientific uncertainty, the limits of knowledge or the value of scientific scepticism. You merely insist that I don't take climate change seriously because of some unspecified bits of properly formulated science - hardly a conceptually dense proposition. We need to move on but cannot. I was wondering if step by step education of activists might be the way to permeate the zeitgeist with an abrupt climate change meme. It does seem to be righter than the stable climate idea and is a sceptic standard - albeit with a different risk assessment than that of US National Academy of Science quoted above. So it is not really a difficult concept if the sceptics get it. I don't understand the resistance to this idea at all - other than with vague notions of cognitive dissonance - but it is resistance that is not well founded. On Apr 22, 4:51 am, Per Edman <[email protected]> wrote: > It is precisely because of properly methodological, referencing and > referenced articles in peer reviewed publications, that anyone expect you or > anyone else to take anthropogenic climate change seriously, Robert, and yet > you fail to do so. > > / Per > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Robert I Ellison < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > You have posted this bizarre analysis in a comment at real climate. > > It is pseudo science that somehow links Arrhenius and the Atlantic > > Multidecadal Oscillation. Expecting me to take it seriously would > > require a proper methodology, proper referencing and peer reviewed > > publication. Let me know when you publish it. > > > On Apr 21, 10:56 am, "David B. Benson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 19, 7:04 pm, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> > > > wrote:> The formula you use is ... > > > > AE(d) = k(lnCO2(d-1) - lnCO2(1870s)) - GTA(1880s) > > > but in which an obvious right parenthsis was > > > missing. There are no undefined terms and the > > > constant k is estimated for best fit to the > > > data as is subsequently mentioned. > > > > The OGTR is a transient response and is, as > > > pointed out, in agreement with an equilibrium > > > sensitivity of about 3 K. > > > > > Arrhenius needs to be understood in the light of 21st century physics? > > > > Yes and all has been settled since the 1970s; the > > > Arrenhius approximation is still considered good > > > enough to appear in IPCC AR4. > > > > Internal variability consists of ENSO, etc., but > > > by taking decadal averages all that is needed is > > > the AMO; if you bothered to read about it you would > > > have discovered it is strongly affected by MOC rate. > > > > Othr forcings need not be considered as the steady > > > ones all cancel out; see IPCC AR4. The random ones > > > are reflected in the AMO. > > > > The abrupt shifts seen in Greenland ice cores are > > > clearly the results of the dynamics of those portions > > > of the cryosphere that we now longer have with us. > > > > -- > > > 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 > > > -- > > 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 > > -- > / Per > > -- > 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
