The trouble is that the uncertainty inevitably associated with the chaotic behaviour of climate works both ways. It may be impossible even in principle to substantiate a doomsday forecast, but it is also impossible to prove anything to the contrary. Read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
Deniers take note.
Did you read anything other than the first paragraph SJT?
“Did you read anything other than the first paragraph SJT?”
I have been saying from the start, the basic science is sound. Paltridge has just trashed G&T and Miskolczi. The only real debate is the extent of the warming, and he agrees with me on that too. Let the real battle begin, and ditch half the trash that turns up on this site.
‘and he agrees with me on that too’ Wow, or do you mean you agree with him?
What I get from the full article is that AGW is a beat-up of huge proportions and that governments around the world have fallen for it.
“What I get from the full article is that AGW is a beat-up of huge proportions and that governments around the world have fallen for it.”
What I get from it is that this site and many other denialist sites like it still waste a huge amount of time, creating a false debate, about whether or not the greenhouse effect even exists.
Oo look, its SJT fresh in from Believer World. Tell us Believer Guy, do you think you should receive a medal for your efforts? I think so, you are such a wonderful believer.
Dribble comes up with nothing. Again.
I sit at your feet, Master of Nothingness. Lead me on to the Truth, the Greater Mindlessness, the Essential Nothingness of Being, the Vacuum, the Empty Shell of Wisdom. I am your humble pupil.
Jennifer, I am puzzled by your choice of headline for this topic. Paltridge used the expression “…the uncertainty inevitably associated with the chaotic behaviour of climate”, while you have dropped the word “behaviour”, thus making it appear that chaos is a defining attribute of climate. In fact, of course, to the extent that climate shows regular behaviour (e.g., glaciations/deglaciations), it is *not* chaotic. This is why it can be modeled and (arguably) predicted.
Cheers
Paltridge appears to be making the common mistake of confusing climate with weather.
Yes, SJT, that too was my response to this aspect of his column. That is surprising, as he should know better. To the extent that weather *is* chaotic, we have difficulty in modelling and predicting it. As the chaos is considerable, so is the difficulty, thus accounting for our inability to make long-range (beyond 7-10 days) of weather forecasts. I must admit I sometimes tire of this inability to distinguish weather and climate.
“I must admit I sometimes tire of this inability to distinguish weather and climate.”
as I understand it:
if it suits AGW propaganda – it’s Climate
if not
It’s weather.
SJT,
You are little bit like the dim child, to whom everything must be endlessly repeated.
Here it is in a nutshell:
Yes, there is a greenhouse effect.
AGW is not the greenhouse effect.
And since climate is made up of weather, all of your brave posing about the inability to tell climate from weather is just pointless and makes yo look sillier than normal.
peterd,
Climate is chaotic, and it has not been well modeled at all by GCMs.
But you would know that, if you are paying attention.
“SJT,
You are little bit like the dim child, to whom everything must be endlessly repeated.
Here it is in a nutshell:
Yes, there is a greenhouse effect.
AGW is not the greenhouse effect.”
You haven’t been around here much, have you? There is a long history of topics and posts that deny even the greenhouse effect.
“And since climate is made up of weather, all of your brave posing about the inability to tell climate from weather is just pointless and makes yo look sillier than normal.”
Can I predict what the next toss of a coin will be? No.
Can I predict what the likely result of 100 coin tosses will be? Yes.
Now we have SJT the Grand Master of Probability Theory. Soon he will be able to count to 10.
Hunter: ”
peterd,
Climate is chaotic, and it has not been well modeled at all by GCMs.
But you would know that, if you are paying attention.”
Hunter, as you appear not to have understood, let me repeat: to the extent that the climate does show regularity (e.g., ice ages), then it is *not* chaotic. You assert climate is chaotic, but you provide no evidence to support the assertion.
peterd,
patterns are not incompatible with chaotic systems.
http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/chaospat.htm
SJT,
I have been around here long enough to know that I do not speak for everyone.
The falsification of AGW does not require the falsification of greenhouse theory. AGW collapses all by itself just fine.
And climate is not coin tossing; neither is weather. But good luck all the same.
peterd,
Here is a nice text book on chaos and patterns for you. I hope it helps:
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/sa.htm
Hunter: “peterd, Here is a nice text book on chaos and patterns for you. I hope it helps:http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/sa.htm”
So, what’s the relevance to climate? I detect nothing in what you’ve just written that amounts to an argument. Or nothing that amounts to a refutation of my contention that you are wrong when you equate climate to chaos.
Hunter:
“An important inference concerning the climate can be made from the degree of regularity and consistency which pertains in the climate response to the changes of solar radiation which provide the Milankovitch forcing. It suggests that the climate system is not strongly chaotic so far as these large variations are concerned. We can also note that changes in climate as a result of the increase of greenhouse gases are driven by changes in the radiative regime at the top of the atmosphere. These changes are not dissimilar in kind (though different in distribution) from the changes that provide the Milankovitch forcing. It can be argued therefore that increases in greenhouse gases will also result in a largely predictable climate response.” (J. Houghton, “The Physics of Atmospheres”, p.248 in the 2005 edition.)
Maybe you’re the one who needs to go back to textbooks.
Because it bears repeating.
“These changes are not dissimilar in kind (though different in distribution) from the changes that provide the Milankovitch forcing. It can be argued therefore that increases in greenhouse gases will also result in a largely predictable climate response.””
The weather may be chaotic, but the climate is constrained by the physical limits. The atmosphere does not suddenly disappear into space, the ocean water does not turn into sand, or change it’s boiling point. The atmosphere obeys the laws of fluid dynamics.
SJT, peterd,
You guys win. Climate is not chaotic and is predictable. File your paper, and go collect your nobel prize.
SJT, all systems are constrained by physical limits. Perhaps you would like to think about that a wee bit more?
peterd, quoting from a text book that is promoting AGW, when the issue is the failure of AGW predictions, is rather circular on your part.
The relevance to climate is that AGW promoters are great at writing models that come to the results they seek.
Sort of like the way Mann carves away at a big pile of data until everything that does not look like a hockey stick is removed.
Your silly remark about water and sand is only matched by your persistance in mistaking the green house effect for AGW theory.
It seems both of you are missing the point that chaotic systems often create patterns.
“SJT, all systems are constrained by physical limits. Perhaps you would like to think about that a wee bit more?”
???
SJT,
Good job! Questioning can lead to thinking! Keep it up; you may get a meaningful thought in there yet.
“SJT,
Good job! Questioning can lead to thinking! Keep it up; you may get a meaningful thought in there yet.”
I have been questioning AGW from the start, the scientists have always come up with reasonable answers and explanations. Your post was too enigmatic to make any sense of.
The author should perhaps have referred to “the variability of climate” rather than “the chaotic behaviour of climate”. However he raises a valid point about the uncertainty of predicting climate change. Despite that uncertainty, the AGW theory, which provides an apparently reasonable explanation for the warming observed in our extremely short observational record, has become the politically correct and therefore funding for research favours it, along with opinion biased towards it.
And again,
““These changes are not dissimilar in kind (though different in distribution) from the changes that provide the Milankovitch forcing. It can be argued therefore that increases in greenhouse gases will also result in a largely predictable climate response.”””
Hunter: “peterd, quoting from a text book that is promoting AGW, when the issue is the failure of AGW predictions,”
No, the issue is not the failure of the predictions. The issue was whether climate is chaotic, or is sufficiently predictable to allow accurate long-range climate predictions. The gist of Paltridge’s article, as it appeared to me, is that he’s claiming that in spite of all the effort and money spent, the changes cannot be predicted with accuracy better than “one to three degrees”. Or, pick a number. He suggests that “[i]n particular it may be that things like the continental, regional and local averages of rainfall are inherently unpredictable”, but does not elaborate on this suggestion and produce a convincing argument. What the actual predictions, or range of predictions is, and whether they match reality, is a quite separate issue from the intellectual question of whether climate is predictable. You’re confusing the issues.
Hunter: “Your silly remark about water and sand is only matched by your persistance …”
??? Mine??? Sand and water?
“The relevance to climate is that AGW promoters are great at writing models that come to the results they seek.”
Evidence?
SJT,
You have not exhibited even once a critical thinking approach ot the outrageous claims made by AGW promoters.
Peterd,
My comment about sand and water was about SJT being ignorant that all processes are constrained by physical limits.
And the issue is completely about the failure of the AGW theories ability to predict.
I would submit that you, and your fellow AGW true beleivers, are the confused in this.
SJT,
Mann’s contrived results come to mind. For starters.
“You have not exhibited even once a critical thinking approach ot the outrageous claims made by AGW promoters.”
I thought I was displaying criticial thinking in regards to the outrageous nonsense posted here as topics, Gerlich and Teuschner being exhibit A, Beck exhibit B.
The fundamental science for AGW is sound, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are well on our way to doubling the concentration of it, there are positive feedbacks that have been identified, there is the enhanced greenhouse effect. As has been quoted already, there is no argument that the Milankovich cycles can cause an ice age, chaos or not, or bring the earth out of an ice age.
SJT,
Like most AGW true beleivers, you ignore the negative feedbacks.
Like AGW promoters, you buy into CO2 being the dominant driver.
That is not critical thinnking on your part.
“Like most AGW true beleivers, you ignore the negative feedbacks.
Like AGW promoters, you buy into CO2 being the dominant driver.”
Rubbish, there will be a limit to the warming, runaway is extremely unlikely. CO2 is the dominant driver at this point in time. That situation will no doubt change in the future.
SJT,
CO2 is never, was never, and will never be, the dominant driver of climate change on Earth.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
So what was your point exactly?
Oh yeah, that runaways are very unlikely.
Well, tell that to Hansen, the most important scientist promoting AGW today:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hansen-calls-for-carbon-tax-to-drop-co2-below-todays-levels-5398/
And according to Greenpeace, Hansen’s opinion is widely held:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0638.html
So, watch out. YOu might get your tinfoil hat taken away, SJT.
You might get pilloried like Spencer, whom you selectively misquote, or even Lindzen.
“CO2 is never, was never, and will never be, the dominant driver of climate change on Earth.”
That does not make sense logically.
CO2 can be a driver of climate, at certain strengths that vary. There are other drivers of climate, also of certain strengths that vary. There is no reason at all why CO2 cannot be the strongest one at a particular point of time, if the others are not active.
“It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.
This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.”
You are confusing driving change, and the participants in the steady state. Water vapour is not a driver of climate change, it responds to the state of the climate as a feedback. It is one of the positive feedbacks that amplifies the effect of increasing CO2, but it does not drive change.
“Otherwise, “If we burn all of the coal [on the planet], there is a good chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect,” he said. That runaway greenhouse effect could become unstoppable, eventually boiling the oceans and destroying all life on earth in what Hansen called the “Venus Syndrome,” after the conditions that exist on the planet next-closest to the sun.”
There is a difference in opion on this among climate scientists who accept AGW is valid science. One I asked referred to previous times in the earth’s history when CO2 levels were much higher and there was no runaway then. He does not believe runaway will happen, he does believe that AGW will cause significant problems for us and the rest of the planet’s species, and should be prevented. Hansen is not a god, he is a scientist.
SJT,
This is fascinating. Please tell us all when H2O became no longer active.
And since CO2, in the accepted historical record, always increases in response to higher temperatures, please tell us why CO2 is in an ‘active’ mode.
Also, for bonus points, please describe for us when the climate has ever been in a ‘steady state’.
Inquiring minds want to know.
You are looking at it the wrong way. H2O is always an active greenhouse gas, a greenhouse gas doesn’t become inactive, it’s a matter of how much there is in the atmosphere. It’s not forcing a change, though. It does respond to change, there is less of it when it is colder, more when it is hotter.
Usually CO2 is a response to change in climate. Your reliance on the geological record however, is not going to work, because we were never in it before, releasing so much CO2 into the atmosphere that was underground that the concentration is going to double. IIRC, there have been a couple of times when CO2 was a leader of climate change.
As for the steady state, once again, you are looking at it the wrong way. If all forcings are low, then the climate won’t be changing much. The is sun not changing much at present. The Milankovich forcings are low. Other forcings are not very active, CO2 is, however. If all forcings are low, the climate as it is at present is capable of continuing pretty much the same, with a balanced carbon cycle active. That’s how life and civilisation have flourished.
SJT,
Please make up your mind. I think you are using the wrong words.
But I am simply quoting you.
You say H2O is not active, not me.
You claim the climate is in a steady state, not me.
There is no evidence the climate has been in a ‘steady state’, by the way.
As to the argument that H2O is simply a passive actor, only acting as a positive feedback, there is ample evidence that H2O acts as a negative feedback. AGW has to ignore that and pretend there are only positives, of course.
As tot he sun not changing much, so now climate scientists know the sun as well?
I suggest you check that one a bit more closely.
You used the word ‘active’, not me. Your choice of words, not mine. Water vapour is not a driver of climate change.
The steady state I am referring to is the radiation balance. It all depends what you define ‘steady’ as. If there are no significant changes over a period of time, thats about what steady is.
If the radiation balance changes, it doesn’t change for some unknown reason, this is the age of science, everything has an explanation, even if we don’t know it yet.
Climate scientist always factor in the sun, do you think they are idiots. The simplest climate models start with the sun.
H2O in the form of clouds is known to be a positive and negative feedback, is models take this into consideration. Once again, do you think they are idiots.
“Greenhouse gases are largely invisible, but the atmosphere also holds a readily visible component
that exerts a profound influence over our planet’s energy balance – the clouds. Clouds on
Earth are composed of suspended droplets of condensed water, in the form of liquid or ice. Clouds,
like water vapor, act as a short-lived greenhouse gas affecting the rate at which infrared can escape
to space. The infrared opacity of clouds is used routinely in weather satellites, since this property
makes cloud patterns visible from space even on the night side of the Earth. However, clouds affect
the other side of the energy balance as well, because cloud particles quite effectively reflect sunlight
back to space. The two competing effects of clouds are individually large, but partly offset each
other, so that small errors in one or the other term lead to large errors in the net effect of clouds
on climate. Moreover, the effect of clouds on the energy budget depends on all the intricacies
8 CHAPTER 1. THE BIG QUESTIONS
of the physics that determine things like particle size and how much condensed water remains in
suspension. For this reason, clouds pose a very severe challenge to the understanding of climate.
This is the case not just for Earth, but for virtually any planet with an atmosphere. The physics
underlying the effects of clouds on both sides of the radiation balance will be discussed in Chapters
4 and 5”
From Pierrehumbert’s Climate textbook.
Peterd
Perhaps you could tell me how ice ages are caused?
Weather – the physical behaviour of the earth’s gaseous and liquid surface film to changes in its environment.
Climate – a human abstraction of weather over an arbitrary period of time.
I find it amusing to read so much po-faced seriousness over the computer modelling of an abstraction. It’s actually weather they are modelling in the GCM’s because climate as a physical thing, does not exist. Only weather does and it’s a non-linear chaotic system.
It might be an idea to read Paltridge’s recent book “The Climate Caper” as background for his Online Opinion essay as well.
“Perhaps you could tell me how ice ages are caused?”
Somebody forgot to pay the power bill?
SJT,
Here is where the concept of ‘active’ was introduced to the discussion, by you:
“CO2 can be a driver of climate, at certain strengths that vary. There are other drivers of climate, also of certain strengths that vary. There is no reason at all why CO2 cannot be the strongest one at a particular point of time, if the others are not active.”
As for H2O not being a driver of climate, that is rather simplistic.
We have deserts and oceans, forests and savannas, icy wastelands, etc. and H2O plays an integral role in the climates of each of those areas.
And the post you just made about clouds, show they are far more significant and complex than the simple positive feedback the AGW models attribute to them. Water vapor can also be a negative feedback:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf
And AGW promoters have vastly over stated climate sensitivity in the first place:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/23/new-paper-from-lindzen/
Again, AGW is not climate science.
“There is no reason at all why CO2 cannot be the strongest one at a particular point of time, if the others are not active.”
The sun is a well known driver of climate, but if it’s not changing insolation, it’s not an active forcing, it’s just maintaining the status quo. If the CO2 level is constant, it’s not acting as a forcing. It’s not that complex an idea.
“And the post you just made about clouds, show they are far more significant and complex than the simple positive feedback the AGW models attribute to them. ”
Point me to the part in the models that does that?
“We have deserts and oceans, forests and savannas, icy wastelands, etc. and H2O plays an integral role in the climates of each of those areas.”
Yes, they know all that.
“There are
other feedbacks in the climate system that complicate the forecast. These include feedbacks from
melting snow and ice, and from the dynamics of glaciers on land. They also include changes in
vegetation, and changes in the ocean circulation which can affect the delay due to burial of heat
in the deep ocean.
From the book.
SJT,
That does not AGW is right.
Since the AGW predictions are not working out, it is obvious they got it, in fact, wrong.
“That does not {mean} AGW is right.”
““That does not {mean} AGW is right.””
Hang on, can we stick to the point. The climate scientists are not ignorant about vegetation changes, nor about water vapour being a positive and negative feedback.
SJT:
““Perhaps you could tell me how ice ages are caused?”
Somebody forgot to pay the power bill?”
According to your AGW theory it’s a reduction in atmospheric CO2 that causes ice ages, the logical corollary to CO2 causing a rise in global temperature.
SJT,
There are plenty of scientists who see that there are major factors driving climate besides CO2.
The ones who do not see that – the IPCC group, Hansen, Schmidt, etc etc., are not ignorant, just wrong.
“The ones who do not see that – the IPCC group, Hansen, Schmidt, etc etc., are not ignorant, just wrong.”
Pierrehumbert is just putting down on paper what the accepted science is. He is also a part of the IPCC. The problem is that you just haven’t found them referring directly to the things you think they are missing.
“According to your AGW theory it’s a reduction in atmospheric CO2 that causes ice ages, ”
LOL
SJT: “According to your AGW theory it’s a reduction in atmospheric CO2 that causes ice ages, LOL”,
“According to your AGW theory it’s an increase in atmospheric CO2 that causes global warming, LOL”.
SJT
I love your comments on probability:
“Can I predict what the next toss of a coin will be? No.
Can I predict what the likely result of 100 coin tosses will be? Yes.”
Would you please come around and fill in my Lotto coupon for this Saturday?
If you have ever tried a linear regression model you would realise that comparing the odds of tossing a coin, or two coins with a 50/50 chance of success is vastly different to predicting the results using multiple interrelated variables. Given that the IPPC use proxies (i.e., guesses) in lieu of unknown data, the reliability of their modeling is in fact closer to zero than their claimed 90%
Your comment regarding probability added about as much to the debate as having an ash tray on a motorcycle.