Robert, Since you steadfastly refuse to discuss the issues I raised, I think you should not refer to me as "the problem". I certainly recognize the facts about abrupt changes in climate as found in the paleo data. However, these changes, such as the Younger Dryas event, while interesting, have no direct bearing on the present situation, since the cause of the YD event no longer exists. Your reference to the NAS report clearly points this out, if you would care to read Chapter 3.
Also, the abrupt changes discussed are not the result of chaos within the atmosphere/ocean climate system, but other ituations. Since they were not, you must not use them as examples of potential abrupt changes which we may presently face. However, the mechanism within the climate system which resulted in the YD cooling appears to be the Thermohaline Circulation, which can be a cause of future abrupt changes, but thru other forcings, such as the slow freshening of the surface waters of the Nordic and Labrador Seas. But, you don't appear interested in that problem, even though it was discussed in the NAS book you linked to. Curious, isn't it? You claim to be worried about abrupt climate change, yet are ignoring the most likely path by which such might happen. Skepticism doesn't allow one to ignore the data, which is what the denialist tend to do. One wonders why it is that you are so worked up and yet remain so blind. Haven't you read Chapter 4 of the NAS report? http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=107 What sort of abrupt changes are you worried about? E. S. ----------------------------- On Apr 21, 11:01 pm, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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
