I think there are actually 2 sciences of climate – the science of global warming and the science of abrupt climate change - and the 2 are mutually incompatible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) defines weather as chaotic. Chaos theory is one of the 3 great ideas, along with relativity and quantum mechanics, of 20th Century physics. The ideas are all counter intuitive but are based on observation. In the case of chaos theory – Edward Lorenz in the 1960’s noticed that an odd thing happened when he changed the input of his computer convection model slightly - the result of the calculation changed by a lot. This led to identification of the butterfly effect – poetically expressed as a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil causing a tornado in Texas – small initial changes causing dramatic and abrupt shifts in complex and dynamic systems such as weather. It is the reason why weather can’t be predicted beyond about a week. Climate, on the other hand, is defined by the IPCC as the ‘average of weather’. On average, if a little carbon is added to the atmosphere the world will be a little warmer regardless of what the weather is doing at any one time – global warming. Independently of the reality or otherwise of an average climate - it should be noted that modern climate models use the same partial differential equations of fluid motion used by Lorenz. Climate models are themselves complex and dynamic systems – small changes (well within the limits of plausibility) in inputs produce radically different answers. What was that result again?
The US National Academy of Sciences published a report called “Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises”. It is based both on paleoclimatic proxy data and modern climate records and identifies mechanisms and examples of abrupt climate change from ancient times to the modern era. The definition of abrupt climate change is that small initial changes in conditions result in large and sudden changes in climate. Climate both past and present is chaotic based on reconstructed and observed data. A numeric approach by Anastasios Tsonis and colleagues used sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure records to identify abrupt climate changes in 1909, the mid 1940’s, the late 1970’s and 1998/2001. The 2007 study is called ‘A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts’. The 2009 study, “Has the climate recently shifted?’ was reported on realclimate (‘climate science by real climate scientists’) in a blog entitled ‘Much ado about natural variation’. If climate is chaotic we are likely to see another 10 years at least of more frequent La Niña, resulting in flooding in Australia, and no increase in global surface temperature. I might be wrong – but 20 plus years of no global warming from 1998 is a big deal and will result in most people falling into the sceptic camp by default. I think that 2010 is very unlikely to be the warmest year on record given the big La Niña currently in the central Pacific. Of course, climate may not be a complex and dynamic system subject to the rules and mathematics of chaos theory – and pig’s might fly. The ideal integration of changes of atmospheric composition and cloud cover on radiant flux balance is of course the satellite TOA data. This indicates that cloud cover changes - associated with ENSO - is the major cause of ocean and atmosphere warming in the satellite era. CERES - Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System - since 1999 shows a similar effect. The satellites actually show cooling in the LW. The IPCC argues that the satellite record is inconsistent with surface cloud observations. Which is not correct - at least for cloud in the most important areas of the Pacific. http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html A quality of a cogent argument is called the completeness requirement - a cogent argument should not omit relevant evidence. Of course I understand about aerosols - not that anyone has much certainty about the quantum of effects pre-satellite. But you assume that a partial answer is the whole answer - i.e. the levelling off of sulphate emissions is the whole explanation for mid century cooling. If you look at ENSO variability - a chaotic system - and understand the connection with cloud then a different but not exclusive explanation emerges. Unless we understand the essentials of natural variability we can't distinguish anthropogenic changes. That's a very basic scientific requirement for a fuller understanding of the bigger picture and not just bits and pieces randomly thrown into the mix and presented as the complete solution. The confidence that we understand everything in sufficient detail is the hubris of many post-modernist scientists. They have forgotten the lessons of the past and this will come back to their cost. But I am concerned with the politics and economics more than the science. I think that 2010 is very unlikely to be the warmest year on record given the big La Niña currently in the central Pacific. The solar cycle variation is about 0.1 degrees C. Interannual variation due to ENSO is much greater and we are in a cool Pacific phase. Peer reviewed science is suggesting that there might be a cooling influence for a decade at least. I think they might be right and this has implications for the trajectory of the public pressure for decarbonisation of the economy. So why am I arguing for carbon neutrality? Wally Broeker – formally of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography – likens human carbon emissions to poking a stick at an angry and unpredictable beast. We might get away with it – but why take the risk if we don’t have to. 'Why is that Robert? Are you just ignorant of the science?' I am very over idiots with misplaced and aggressively insulting confidence in their command of the evidence. On Sep 16, 10:34 pm, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert, you mention the increase in rate of CO2 emissions after WW II, > but fail to also consider the companion increase in the rate of > emissions of sulfates and other particulates, which tend to increase > albedo and thus cool the global climate. Why is that Robert? Are you > just ignorant of the science? Oh, now that the solar cycle has > started up again, temperatures appear to be going up again. The > melting of sea-ice over the Arctic Ocean this year is again producing > a near record loss, in spite of the short term cooling effects from > the particulate emissions from the fires in Russia... > > E. S. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > On Sep 16, 5:41 am, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking > > off at the end of the 2nd World War, global surface temperatures fell > > from 1945 to 1976. Imagine what no warming for another 10 years will > > do to the politics of climate change, when already most of the world > > has fallen by default into the sceptic camp. > > > how about the 60's and 70's? Selectively quoting is not fair, > > considered or reasonable. > > >http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.our-energy.com/slik... > > > a meaningless comment and an insult just to muddy the waters - > > typical- 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
