David B. Benson | 16 Sep 01:37 2010

[Global Change: 3818] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

On Sep 10, 6:42 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> ...  Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking
> off at the end of the 2nd World War, ...
Not so.  CO2 concentration increases during the 1940s and 1950s are
amoung the lowest since before the 1880s.

After that, your misunderstandings multiply seemingly without end.

You are seriously embarassing yourself and ought to study before
offering comment.

--

-- 
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 globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

Robert I Ellison | 16 Sep 09:42 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3819] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Oh David - give it up

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/issues/images/lawdome.GIF&imgrefurl=http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/issues/issue197.html&h=348&w=479&sz=9&tbnid=FU-xbg0Q8vJawM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dco2%2Bin%2B%2Batmosphere&zoom=1&q=co2+in++atmosphere&hl=en&usg=__WMEV_DDiRBvO2nn3Iz8MgmOiy7c=&sa=X&ei=WsSRTKmAFs34cZ-omYMH&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAw

Are you objecting to a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050? Clearly
exceeding Australian Green Party policy? I don't know what I have done
wrong.

Shouldn't take risks with planetary life support systems?  Doesn't
seem controversial.

Navier-Stokes partial differnential equation of fluid motion? Edward
Lorenz? Climate models? No that's right.

IPCC? Chaotic weather? Climate as average weather?  No that's exactly
what they say.

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
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 16 Sep 11:41 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3819] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

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/slike/neobnovljivi_ugljicni.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.our-energy.com/non_renewable_energy_sources.html&h=337&w=450&sz=15&tbnid=4SfS4uEgGlfJsM:&tbnh=95&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcarbon%2Bdioxide%2Bin%2Bthe%2Batmosphere&zoom=1&q=carbon+dioxide+in+the+atmosphere&hl=en&usg=__T8OTkdNxcvpazpQBSrnLimXjZJA=&sa=X&ei=vOSRTOqSLo27ccb1wbUG&ved=0CDAQ9QEwBA

a meaningless comment and an insult just to muddy the waters -
typical

On Sep 16, 9:37 am, "David B. Benson" <dben... <at> eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 6:42 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
> wrote:> ...  Just when carbon dioxide emissions were taking
> > off at the end of the 2nd World War, ...
>
> Not so.  CO2 concentration increases during the 1940s and 1950s are
> amoung the lowest since before the 1880s.
>
> After that, your misunderstandings multiply seemingly without end.
>
> You are seriously embarassing yourself and ought to study before
> offering comment.

--

-- 
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
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 16 Sep 14:34 2010

[Global Change: 3821] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

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 <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
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
>

--

-- 
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 16 Sep 23:47 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3822] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

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
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 17 Sep 02:55 2010

[Global Change: 3823] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Robert, you sure are a funny guy.  There's nothing in your reply about
my specific comment regarding your previous post.  And, while we are
at it, climate as defined by the people who study climate is the
statistics of weather, not just the average.  The average temperature
is usually considered over a period of about 30 years, which makes any
one year's variation (chaotic or otherwise) much less important.  The
IPCC isn't the source of this definition, as it has been in use for
decades.

Those of us who may have read your rants before recognize your
obsession with the work of  Tsonis, et al.  Funny thing, it's been a
rather warm year in many locations around the world and this year is
already close to being a record warm one.  Where did that cooling
trend go, you know, the one the denialist claim started in 1998?
Only 2 1/2 more months and the data will be in for 2010 and the sea-
ice extent is near the previous record low set in 2007.  Of course,
you refuse to discuss any other explanations for the recent
variations, such as changes in the THC, a known factor in the climate
of the North Atlantic and the driver of much of the global overturning
circulation...

E. S.
-----------------------------------------
Robert I Ellison wrote:
> 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
(Continue reading)

David B. Benson | 17 Sep 03:43 2010

[Global Change: 3824] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

On Sep 16, 2:47 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> 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.
Nonsense, and the rest of the misunderstanding elided.
Here are the radiative forcings:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/NetF.txt
Study it.

Also, check decadal temperatures, NCDC has a fine graphic.  NOtice
each decades's average global temperature has been going up for 30+
years.  Also, but incidently, it looks like 2010 will be something
like 4th or 8th warmest on record.  Also, I predict that the 2010s
will continue the decadal warmng, but you failed to understand even
something as simple as that.

--

-- 
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 globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
(Continue reading)

David B. Benson | 17 Sep 03:53 2010

[Global Change: 3825] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

On Sep 16, 6:43 pm, "David B. Benson" <dben... <at> eecs.wsu.edu> wrote:
...
Well, maybe 2010 will be right up near the top for
global temperature:
"NASA reports hottest January to August on record"
http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/12/nasahottest-january-to-august-on-record/

--

-- 
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 globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

Robert I Ellison | 17 Sep 11:02 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3826] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Try this one for daily temps - and compare for at least this century -
heaps of fun.  Unlike you guys.  2010 was trending to be the warmest
ever.

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

Have a look at this one -   a very pretty picture - a big, big La Nina
in the central Pacific and a planet cooling off.  Frigid, nutrient
rich and quite acidic water rising from the briny depths in the
Humboldt Current.  I predict a huge increase in biological
productivity across the Pacific.

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.9.16.2010.gif

I hesitate to link to Roy Spencer but it is the monthly data that is
most relevant to ENSO.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Global temp peaked in July and can't go anywhere but down.

I just heard on the radio this morning that Arctic ice extent this
year was the third lowest.

You might tell Eric that the definition of climate as the average of
weather is the one the IPCC promotes.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-2.html

All your link does is show forcing increasing over the decades.  So
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 18 Sep 21:29 2010

[Global Change: 3828] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Yes, it does look like a La Ninio is in the works.  That's part of the
natural short term variability.  In addition, that's why one needs to
look at longer time periods, instead of monthly data, such as you
point to from  Spencer and Christy's web site.  The AMSU temperatures
time series doesn't go back in time very far and there's some question
to me regarding the validity of Spencer & Christy's earlier work with
the MSU.  After all, remember that I found an apparent discrepancy in
their data over the Antarctic.  Christy and Spencer's method of
combining the AMSU with the MSU data requires a model, which only adds
another source of possible error.  Even Roy Spencer admits that there
is a Greenhouse Effect:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

As for the IPCC's definition of climate, they rely on earlier work.
To quote from your link, they mention the "statistics of weather", as
did I:

"Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate
change and weather are intertwined. Observations can show that there
have been changes in weather, and it is the statistics of changes in
weather over time that identify climate change. While weather and
climate are closely related, there are important differences..."

Your comment about hubris applies to you as well, I think.  Here's a
long blog post to show the problem:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/scientists-react-to-a-nobelists-climate-thoughts/

E. S.
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 18 Sep 23:38 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3829] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Miskolczi makes claim to certain fundamental physical laws - when you
look closely at this the physical laws claimed don't apply and the
formula are based only on empirical data that can't possibly be
accurate enough to demonstrate Miskolczi's claims.  This is what
Spencer was saying.   I did start with certain physical fundamentals
also - 'that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human beings
are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere'. Sceptic love
Miskolczi beca

All of the satellite records have very significant problems -
calibration, drift, orbital decay, equipment failure, space shuttle
disasters etc.

My point is for ENSO - the monthly record is the most relevant - the
satellites are now achieving some consistency.  Did you have a look at
the daily record?  Good for looking at annual trends.  Horses for
courses.

ENSO is not just a short term variation - it is, statistically, non-
gaussian and non-stationary.  It varies over decadal timescales and
longer - and is driven in part by the Antarctic circumpolar current.
Which is influenced by the top down UV changes identified by Lockwood
et al in the other research linked to.  ENSO drives changes in cloud
cover and global T - see the ERBS and ISCCP TOA flux.  It seems a
matter of SST.  Cold surface water promotes low level cloud formation
- which seems sensible.

On Sep 19, 5:29 am, Eric Swanson <e_swan... <at> skybest.com> wrote:
> Yes, it does look like a La Ninio is in the works.  That's part of the
> natural short term variability.  In addition, that's why one needs to
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 19 Sep 02:00 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3830] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

I was thinking more Feynman than 'cultural cognition', or associatied
cognitive dissonance - central as they are to the human condition, the
'need to be right' and to will to impose that on others.  Start with
identification of the enemy and end with genocide and totalitarian
repression.

'In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and
arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always
with the lack of knowledge. An accusation of hubris often implies that
suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing
of hubris and nemesis in the Greek world. The proverb "pride goes
before a fall" is thought to sum up the modern definition of hubris.
It is also referred to as "pride that blinds", as it often causes
someone accused of hubris to act in foolish ways that belie common
sense.'

In a scientific context it applies to scientific conservatism - too
great a confidence in your conclusions and a failure to be open to
reflection and falsification - a resistance to and angry rejection of
new ideas.  In a very modern sense it applies to misguided scientists
and greenies thinking that science gives them a casting vote on policy
and economics - and that any other idea is immoral, insane, ignorant
and self serving.

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just
as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman

I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that
here and there.
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 19 Sep 07:29 2010

[Global Change: 3831] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Have you read James Hansen's book, "Storms of My Grandchildren"?   If
he is even half right, then humanity may not survive much longer on
Earth, but will die out along with most of the rest of the planet.
Your use of chaos theory sounds like a great excuse to ignore Hansen's
warning, but what if he is right?  Do you think it's really a good
idea to take that risk, especially since you are claiming that
humanity doesn't know enough to make a solid prediction of future
climate?  Continuing with Business As Usual is a choice and there is a
risk that is associated with that choice. Your comment about "Hubris
is the assumption of truth" applies to the choice of BAU as well as
the choice to do those things which minimize CO2 emissions.  Either
choice has consequences and without some effort to understand the
totality of the problem, it's impossible to make a rational decision.
Your knowledge and that of the policy makers may be limited, but the
scientists who study climate change are making their best efforts to
understand the situation.  As you note, they may not have certainty,
but they have enough knowledge to set bounds on the range of likely
effects, since we know something about historical and paleo climate,
and that's what should be considered, now some hand waving claim that
everything is chaotic.  Newtonian physics still works rather well in
many situations, in fact we used that level of physics to launch
satellites when I was working in the field...

E. S.
------------------------------------------------------------
On Sep 18, 8:00 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
>
> We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not
> unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 19 Sep 11:09 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3832] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Don't get me wrong - I love Newton.  How about a 1st order
differential equation of global energy storage:

 d(GES)/dt = Ein/s - Eout/s

Average energy in and energy out (at TOA) over a period is equal to
the rate of change of global energy storage - which is mostly in the
oceans.  In CERES (Clouds and Earths Radiant Energy System) the planet
has warmed over the past decade for instance - Ein exceeeds Eout and
the rate of change in global energy storage is positive.  Mostly,
however, in the short wave and because of changes in cloud cover.  As
the current mega La Nina persists - cloud cover will increase and the
planet (oceans and atmosphere) cool a little.

This is my original quote in arguing for carbon neutrality by 2050 -
something that goes well beyond Green Party policy in Australia.  and
something that is emphatically not going to happen through cap and
trade.

'Just before opening the champagne bottles, think about the idea that
humans are changing the composition of the atmosphere.  If it is
impossible to disentangle human impacts from natural variation – it is
impossible to be definitive about climate risk.  But it cuts both
ways.  If we can’t define the risk we cannot eliminate it either.  If
there is a 1 in 100, 1000 or even 1,000,000 chance - as shown in the
chaotic behaviour of paleoclimates - of dire consequences to the
planetary life support system we must make the decision to change the
behaviour and eliminate the risk.'

It seems to me that the rational decision is easy to make.  Create the
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 19 Sep 17:17 2010

[Global Change: 3833] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

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
(Continue reading)

Tom Adams | 20 Sep 15:19 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3834] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

This seems relavent:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-chaos-of-confusing-the-concepts.html

On Sep 19, 11:17 am, Eric Swanson <e_swan... <at> skybest.com> 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
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 21 Sep 13:25 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3839] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/final.html

'As definitions of abrupt change are being refined, scientists
continue to pose hypotheses regarding mechanisms, but only a few of
these mechanisms have been tested using climate models. Even for one
of the best known abrupt change events, the Younger Dryas, neither the
global extent of temperature or precipitation change nor the
accompanying changes in ocean circulation and atmospheric trace gases
are well known. The next decade is sure to bring many new developments
on this topic.'

On Sep 20, 11:19 pm, Tom Adams <tadams... <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
> This seems relavent:
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-chaos-of-confusing-the-concepts.html
>
> On Sep 19, 11:17 am, Eric Swanson <e_swan... <at> skybest.com> 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
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 21 Sep 11:02 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3840] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

It may be relevant but wrong.  Try realclimate - and then read the
science.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

Read this 2009 study - and most especially the original 2007 study -
"A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shift."

They identify climate shifts around 1910, the mid 1940's, the late
1970's and 1998/2001 from a numerical method involving ocean and
atmospheric indices - mirrowing the tracjectory of surface
temperature.

The US National Academy of Sciences identify abrupt climate change all
over the place.
'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.'
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=R1

Wikipedia is often a good place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

On Sep 20, 11:19 pm, Tom Adams <tadams... <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
> This seems relavent:
>
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-chaos-of-confusing-the-concepts.html
>
> On Sep 19, 11:17 am, Eric Swanson <e_swan... <at> skybest.com> wrote:
>
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 20 Sep 08:56 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3835] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

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
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 20 Sep 17:05 2010

[Global Change: 3836] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics


Robert I Ellison wrote:

> 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.

Actually, you wrote:
"... Climate, however, is seen by the IPCC as an
average of weather – the unstated underlying assumption is that the
climate is not a complex and dynamic (chaotic) system and that there
is therefore an average climate state..."

> 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.

Over the past 10,000 years or so, the paleo data shows that the global
average temperature has remained within a rather narrow band.  Going
back further in time, to the LGM, the average temperature appears to
have been about 5-6C lower, i.e., not a great change.  Of course, over
short time periods, within the past 10,000 years, there have been
episodes of variation in temperature, but there is also evidence that
these changes were the result of known impacts of events, such as
volcanic eruptions, which are EXTERNAL to the climate system.  The
glacial-interglacial cycles are thought to be forced by EXTERNAL
variations in solar energy flows.  Thus, when discussing the climate
system and the INTERNAL variation, one can not ascribe all the
variation to INTERNAL CHAOTIC processes.   The abrupt changes of
greatest impact, such as the Younger-Dryas period, were due to
situations which do not exist today and thus can not be expected to
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 21 Sep 10:47 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3841] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

The transport index is calculated as the difference in ocean potential
energy anomaly near the centers of the subpolar and subtropical
gyres.  It gives an indication of the strength of the Gulf Steam and
North Atlantic Current. You don't bother reading anything do you?

On Sep 21, 1:05 am, Eric Swanson <e_swan... <at> skybest.com> wrote:
> Robert I Ellison wrote:
> > 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.
> Actually, you wrote:
>
> "... Climate, however, is seen by the IPCC as an
> average of weather – the unstated underlying assumption is that the
> climate is not a complex and dynamic (chaotic) system and that there
> is therefore an average climate state..."
>
> > 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.
>
> Over the past 10,000 years or so, the paleo data shows that the global
> average temperature has remained within a rather narrow band.  Going
> back further in time, to the LGM, the average temperature appears to
> have been about 5-6C lower, i.e., not a great change.  Of course, over
> short time periods, within the past 10,000 years, there have been
> episodes of variation in temperature, but there is also evidence that
> these changes were the result of known impacts of events, such as
> volcanic eruptions, which are EXTERNAL to the climate system.  The
> glacial-interglacial cycles are thought to be forced by EXTERNAL
> variations in solar energy flows.  Thus, when discussing the climate
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 21 Sep 16:31 2010

[Global Change: 3842] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Robert I Ellison wrote:
> The transport index is calculated as the difference in ocean potential
> energy anomaly near the centers of the subpolar and subtropical
> gyres.  It gives an indication of the strength of the Gulf Steam and
> North Atlantic Current. You don't bother reading anything do you?

Those currents are generally horizontal surface currents and, while
their strength and path do influence the weather around the North
Atlantic basin, they are not the same as the THC.  The THC is the link
between the surface and the deepest portions of the world's oceans.
The THC is the cause of the cold temperatures and high salinities of
the deep layers.  The paper you reference focuses on  the currents
nearest the surface, the authors stating:

"As will be seen in the discussion of the subtropical gyre below, PEA
changes comprise components arising from density changes directly
forced by surface buoyancy flux and mixing (diabatic effects), and
those due to the main pycnocline moving (quasi-adiabatically) up and
down. In the Labrador Sea, convection is typically of order 1000 m but
can exceed 2000 m . A weak pycnocline separates the LSW from the
denser Nordic seas overflow waters but contributes very little through
vertical movement to PEA variability..."

Please notice the reference to "denser Nordic Seas overflow waters".
Those waters are formed by the THC process in the Arctic
Mediterranean.  Don't you understand anything I write?

E. S.
 ---------------------------------------
> On Sep 21, 1:05 am, Eric Swanson <e_swan... <at> skybest.com> wrote:
(Continue reading)

David B. Benson | 26 Sep 22:50 2010

[Global Change: 3843] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

The abstract of
Zaliapin, I. and Ghil, M.:
Another look at climate sensitivity,
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 17, 113-122,
doi:10.5194/npg-17-113-2010.
http://www.nonlin-processes-geophys.net/17/113/2010/npg-17-113-2010.html
appears relevant to this discussion
(if we can call it that).
[Thanks to Chris Colose]

--

-- 
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 globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange

Robert I Ellison | 8 Oct 11:13 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3847] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

The Royal Society Climate change: a summary of the science I September
2010

'In principle, changes in climate on a wide range of timescales can
also arise from variations within the climate system due to, for
example, interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere; in this
document, this is referred to as “internal climate variability”. Such
internal variability can occur because the climate is an example of a
chaotic system: one that can exhibit complex unpredictable internal
variations even in the absence of the climate forcings discussed in
the previous paragraph.

http://the-eggs.org/bookreviews.php?id=55

'The readers of Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics are well aware that
the solutions to nonlinear deterministic-like equations governing
weather evolution are most probably chaotic in space and time: a small
scale truncation can in a finite time generate large-scale errors.
This behaviour has been conjectured precisely, for the prototypical
Navier-Stokes equations and is subject to a million-dollar Clay
Mathematics Millennium prize. Without awaiting this mathematical
conclusion, statistical theories of turbulence and corresponding
stochastic models are already in constant use in a wide range of fluid
mechanics applications.

The book “Stochastic Physics and Climate Modelling” edited by Palmer
and Williams (2010) pushes forward these ideas in an original manner
to the even more challenging and wider theme of climate change, which
has an estimated worth of one trillion dollars (Stern, 2006), as
recalled by the editors in their breathtaking preface. This book
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 8 Oct 12:01 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3848] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

'There are three main processes that make the oceans circulate: tidal
forces, wind stress, and density differences. The density of sea water
is controlled by its temperature (thermo) and its salinity (haline),
and the circulation driven by density differences is thus called the
thermohaline circulation.

The Gulf Stream (and its extension, the North Atlantic Drift) bring
warm, salty water to the NE Atlantic, warming western Europe.
The water cools, mixes with cold water coming from the Arctic Ocean,
and becomes so dense that it sinks, both to the south and east of
Greenland.'

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/

'The transport index is calculated as the difference in ocean
potential energy anomaly near the centers of the subpolar and
subtropical
gyres.  It gives an indication of the strength of the Gulf Steam and
North Atlantic Current.'

http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sub/berm_lab_trans.php

I am not clear that you know what you are talking about - how do I
stand a hope?

On Sep 22, 12:31 am, Eric Swanson <e_swan... <at> skybest.com> wrote:
> Robert I Ellison wrote:
> > The transport index is calculated as the difference in ocean potential
> > energy anomaly near the centers of the subpolar and subtropical
> > gyres.  It gives an indication of the strength of the Gulf Steam and
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 8 Oct 16:20 2010

[Global Change: 3849] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

After all this discussion, I doubt that you are interested in facts.
The Gulf Stream Current, which later branches with some flowing toward
the north as the North Atlantic Drift, is not the THC.  That is to
say, the rate of flow as the THC is only a fraction of the rate of
flow in the Gulf Stream as that current moves away from the US coast
off North Carolina.  The PEA transport index, which you continue to
reference, does not provide a measure the THC, only the currents which
flow closer to the surface.  If you will look again at Curry and
McCartney (J. Phys. Oceanogr., 2001), the graphic of Figure 12 shows
the path of the currents and the Nordic Seas aren't even on the map!
Likewise, the depth of the strongest currents, such as shown in
Figures 4 and 10, is near the surface.  The THC produces the deepest
flows and much of that originates in the Arctic Mediterranean, well to
the north.  thus, the PEA does not measure the THC sinking.

Sorry, I think that it is YOU who still do not understand...

E. S.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct 8, 6:01 am, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> 'There are three main processes that make the oceans circulate: tidal
> forces, wind stress, and density differences. The density of sea water
> is controlled by its temperature (thermo) and its salinity (haline),
> and the circulation driven by density differences is thus called the
> thermohaline circulation.
>
> The Gulf Stream (and its extension, the North Atlantic Drift) bring
> warm, salty water to the NE Atlantic, warming western Europe.
> The water cools, mixes with cold water coming from the Arctic Ocean,
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 8 Oct 23:37 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3850] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

It is clearly the Bermuda-Labrador Transport Index whcich is based on
potential engergy anomalies (PEA) which gives an indication of the
strength of the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Drift.

http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/sub/berm_lab_trans.php

The Climatic Research - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/thc/ - has
some interesting and up to date graphics on both surface and deep
flows. To quote again - 'There are three main processes that make the
oceans circulate: tidal forces, wind stress, and density differences.
The density of sea water is controlled by its temperature (thermo) and
its salinity (haline), and the circulation driven by density
differences is thus called the thermohaline circulation.

The Gulf Stream (and its extension, the North Atlantic Drift) bring
warm, salty water to the NE Atlantic, warming western Europe.
The water cools, mixes with cold water coming from the Arctic
Ocean,and becomes so dense that it sinks, both to the south and east
of
Greenland.'  That is fairly clear - note 'mixes with cold water coming
from the Arctic'.

Increasing salinity due to evaporation in the Gulf Stream as water
moves north - is an imporant aspect of thermo-haline circulation.  The
strength of the Gulf Stream - and thus the volume of cooling salty
water in the North Atlantic and thus the volume of deep water
formation - is influenced by interannual to multi-decadal changes in
the North Atlantic Oscillation.  Thermo-haline circulation is a to an
extent a self sustaining process as water moves north, sinks and flows
south again in the deep oceans.   And you have to remember that they
(Continue reading)

Eric Swanson | 9 Oct 01:37 2010

[Global Change: 3851] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

No, I'm saying that the THC happens in the Nordic Seas and the Arctic
Ocean, not the North Atlantic Sub-Polar Gyre.  The Arctic
Mediterranean has that name because the deeper waters are connected
via the deep sill in the Fram Strait.  Water which sinks in the Arctic
Ocean feeds the Greenland Sea via that deep trough.  The flow of water
which becomes the THC is a small fraction of the Gulf Stream and
arises from waters which are of lower salinity than the water in the
Sub-Tropical Gyre.  That's why the water must become very cold to
sink.

http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/papers/2000s/wiley_talley_salinitypatterns.pdf

The models which have been used to study the THC suggest that sinking
can happen further south due to freshening of the Arctic
Mediterranean, thus cooling the climate around the Nordic Seas.  That
does not mean that the Gulf Stream would stop, just that the location
of sinking would change.  The PEA does not reflect the THC sinking,
only the major surface flow of the Gulf Stream, most of which turns
back toward the south and flows around the Sub-Tropical Gyre.  Please
look at Figure 12 which I referenced in my last post.

Here's a later paper by Curry and Mauritzen to give you a more up-to-
date sense of what's happening:

"Dilution of the Northern North Atlantic  Ocean in Recent Decades",
Science 17 June 2005: Vol. 308, pp. 1772 - 1774
DOI: 10.1126/science.1109477

E. S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

David B. Benson | 21 Sep 00:21 2010

[Global Change: 3837] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

On Sep 19, 11:56 pm, Robert I Ellison <rob... <at> robertellison.com.au>
wrote:
> ...
>
> We barely know what ENSO was doing 400 years ago ...
There is a good proxy for the past 10,000 years.

But I fear you have fallen into the fallacy of
reductionism.  Instead, concentrate on longer
time scales.  A good beginning is W.F.Ruddiman's
"Earth's Climate: Past and Future" with its fine
and simple exposition of relevant time scales;
decadal. centennial and millennial.

Then use some linear system theory to consider
the climate's response to the (approximately)
ramp function of additional forcing over the past
130+ years, a centennial scale.

--

-- 
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 globalchange <at> googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange-unsubscribe <at> googlegroups.com
(Continue reading)

Robert I Ellison | 21 Sep 12:30 2010
Picon

[Global Change: 3838] Re: Climate Risk Policy for Sceptics

Accurate ENSO records more than a few decades old are rare - although
modern reinterpretations of the instrumental record might change this
somewhat.

Some proxies rely on tree or coral rings - biological - about 450
years max and not hugely accurate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.1297/pdf

Other proxies rely on deposition in cores - see Figure 4 of the
following.  It 'suggests' a change 5000 years BP - which is
interesting in terms changes of African rainfall.  Please note the
language below - climate is by no means linear.

'This is a proxy record based on the distribution of inorganic clastic
laminae in a core retrieved from Lake Laguna Pallcacocha in Ecuador.
The laminae
are deposited during ENSO-driven episodes of alluvial deposition in
the Laguna Pallca10
cocha drainage basin. These laminae are mixed with dark-colored
organic-rich silt. The
surface of the core sections was scanned and the intensity of the red
color was used to
generate the proxy record. In general higher intensity values
correspond to El Ni˜no and
lower values to La Ni˜na. This record has been extensively analyzed
and recent results
(Moy et al., 2002; Tsonis, 2008) suggest a change in the dynamics at
around 3000 BC.
15 It appears that around that time a bifurcation occurred in the ENSO
(Continue reading)


Gmane