Climate related business reached $500 billion last year? The critical early areas are conservation, efficiency and reducing carbon intensity - all of which have been progressing solidly for decades.
Many energy sources - nuclear and other - are progressing rapidly on the back of government subsidies. This would all be fine if it weren't for the spectre of third world development. Social bloody democrats worrying about China, India and Africa having a western lifestyle. 4 bloody plaents down the drain and other nonsense. Stuff it - a low cost source of energy is absolutely critical in bringing along the world to reasonable standard of living. Fo you take me for an idiot? You don't read anything I say. I gave you the bloody IPCC definition of weather as chaotic and you waffle on about me somehow thinking this is a surprise. We barely know what ENSO was doing 400 years ago - what the hell has this to do with glacials - and only well for the past 60. I am talking about obvious abrupt change in the instrument record - in both surface and ocean temperature. I referenced the US Nationl Academy of Sciences - 'Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable surprises' which discusses both paleoclimatic and modern changes. I referenced 2 among many per reviewed studies - and you - and those that specifically and numerically identify abrupt change in the instrumental record and as a result of ENSO, the PDO, the NAO and the PNA - AND YOU UTTERLY MISS THE POINT AGAIN and snidely suggest that I supply some science. As if I have not. Chaos is a caracteristic of complex and dynamic systems - such as computer programs using the partial differential equations of fluid motion. Skill of modellers for God's sake. They bifurcate - jump into different states entirely with inputs within the realm of plausibility - just as Edward Lorenz's 1960's convection model did. Then these skillfull modellers chose one result that seems about right. If you don't understand this about models you understand nothing at all. 'Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision.' The latter has not been undertaken at all. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full Do you comprehends nothing at all and simply respond with platitudes? Energy flowing at a nearly constant rate? Ocean heat storage changes very slowly? Neither of these statements mean anything at all. Of course ocean temperature change according to the energy imbalance of the planet - a matter of conservation of energy - don't you understand my differential equation? The oceans are heated strongly at the surface by SW radiation (a 100 odd metre deep warm surface layer) and this interacts at many places with frigid sursurface conditions - both with falling and rising water. But oceans have a heat storage capacity a 1000 times that of the atmosphere - it is mostly at the surface but it changes all the time. You contradict yourself. Climate both evolves slowly and in the second paragraph abruptly? There are lots of factors other than north Atlantic THC - dust, cloud, ice and the entire bloody Southern Hemisphere. Get your head out of your proverbial and read a litle better, deeper and wider. BTW - the 'transport index (bottom panel) estimates the strength of the baroclinic gyre circulation in the North Atlantic, or the strength of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Current system. The units (Mtons s-1) are within a few percent of the volumetric unit of transport (Sverdrups = 106 m3s-1). It is calculated from the difference of the potential energy anomalies (PEA) near Bermuda and in the Labrador Basin (top two panels). The evolution of the index from 1950 through 2000 shows a circulation reducing through the low NAO period in the 1960s, then strengthening during the period of persistently high NAO over the next 25 years, reaching a peak in the mid-1990s. They found that the timing and mechanisms associated with PEA changes in each gyre varied, and were dependent on both locally and remotely-forced changes in the ocean (see paper for details).' http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sub/berm_lab_trans.php I have provided this link previously as well - some of this is very difficult science unlike my attempts at science communication. Do try to pay attention. On Sep 20, 1:17 am, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course the weather is chaotic on short time scales and small > dimensions. That's a fundamental characteristic of turbulent fluid > flow. Do you really think the people who have studied and who work in > the atmospheric sciences are unaware of this? Given this obvious > fact, the reality is that the climate in the past has changed rather > slowly and we have learned much about the reasons for the changes in > climate seen in the historical and paleo records. And, the skills of > the model builders have progressed to the extent that the models can > produce a very good simulation of past and present climate. That's > because the climate system is a highly dissipative system with energy > flowing thru it at a nearly constant rate. The energy storage within > the oceans is important, but much of the water in the oceans is > relatively isolated from the surface, therefore the thermal storage > changes very slowly (at present, of course). > > I share your concern about abrupt climate change and from my > perspective, the most likely cause of those abrupt changes seen in the > record is the Thermohaline Circulation. I am on record pointing this > out in a comment to the US Climate Science Program. It would appear > that political influence resulted in such warnings being ignored. > Also, I know of no hard evidence which links ENSO and the abrupt > transitions which ended the Interglacials, leading to Ice Age > conditions. If you are really worried, why not provide us with a > link, you know, as in science? I think I see an indication that the > THC has weakened in the Greenland Sea in recent years, but I do not > have the tools, the money and the institutional associations needed to > provide hard proof. Oceanography is a very expensive science. I > can't even pay for a fishing boat. > > BTW, if the rational choice were so easy to make, we would already > have made it. > > E. S. > ---------------------------------------------- > On Sep 19, 5:09 am, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> > wrote: > [cut] > > > > > It seems to me that the rational decision is easy to make. Create the > > market for low carbon technologies and business will respond > > creatively. I think that government investment in not even neccessary > > - just the right social and cultural understanding sine qua non. The > > difficulty is in using irrational predictions of the certainty of dire > > outcomes for political engineering by social bloody democrats. > > > The problem with Hansen and the IPCC is that if they are wrong over > > the next couple of decades - as I believe they most certainly are and > > as suggested by peer reviewed literaure - everyone is going to end up > > a sceptic and the impetus for decarbonisation is lost for at least a > > generation. I am arguing, perhaps forlornly, for action despite the > > confluence of ideologically inspired and millenialist thinking. If > > there is immense uncertainty - why not admit to it and not take the > > risk of being shown to be hopelessly wrong, muddleheaded, misguided > > and a social democrat. Or is that a tuatology? > > > I don't think you are understanding chaos as one of three great ideas, > > along with relativity and quantum mechanics, in 20th Century physics. > > Small initial changes propagating nonlinearly through a complex and > > dynamic system and causing the system to jump between radicaly > > different states. Science can give us a correlation between UV and > > cloud for instance - but the system involves changes in the > > temperature of stratospheric ozone and consequential changes in sea > > surface pressure at the poles in particular. The system involves > > planetary spin, surface and deep ocean currents, wind and cloud > > feedbacks, wave propagation and refraction and reflection. Climate is > > theorectically determinant but practically incaluable. Global warming > > is certainly wrong - the more correct paradigm must be abrupt, and > > perhaps dangerous, climate change.- 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
