But not at the south, I take it?
Roll out the proof of that "climate is predictable" stuff or just drop it man.
You did say it.
So where's the reference?
Stu - as you exhibit a fair grasp of the subject, perhaps you could be the one to answer my simple question. How much warming is acceptable and natural?
I'm searching for the guidelines that will tell me just what the earth's climate should be, at any given point in time, yet I've been unable to locate that information. Surely someone must know, or how else can they determine what is good warming and what is bad warming?
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
Try a textbook on PDE's for discussion on time-averaged chaotic systems. Or, a sophmore-level textbook on thermodynamics. There's no scientific journal reference for something quite so basic.
Stu - as you exhibit a fair grasp of the subject, perhaps you could be the one to answer my simple question. How much warming is acceptable and natural?
I'm searching for the guidelines that will tell me just what the earth's climate should be, at any given point in time, yet I've been unable to locate that information. Surely someone must know, or how else can they determine what is good warming and what is bad warming?
By natural, you mean without AGW forcing. The IPCC report, (I believe) quantifies within error, how much forcing (in W/m^2) is due to AGW, and how much is due to other sources, like solar variation. I'll go look it up.
No Stu, I don't mean with or without ANYTHING. Just how much should the earth be warming, or cooling, at any given moment in time.
To determine that the earth is warming more than it should be, there has to be some benchmark to measure by. We can say that because of warming this or that MAY happen, but, by what standard do we determine that the amount of warming is more than it should be?
In other words, is gw bad, or is it bad because of the possible consequences?
(couldn't load your link)
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
There is nothing "basic" about partial differential equations there Stu. I have solved a few ordinary differential equations there, almost all by numerical techniques, but real-world partial differential equations typically are fiendishly difficult to solve, even if your model is correct.
Since these partial differential equations are the core of your argument that "climate is predictable", then explain it here. It does not need a textbook if it's "basic", does it.
Go ahead.
Convince me that "climate is predictable", in "basic" terms.
Take the techniques you speak of, and EVEN IN OUTLINE, show how climate change is "predictable".
You will have me as an instant convert if you can.
Go ahead.
It's "basic", isn't it.
Stu...
Roll out the proof of that "climate is predictable" stuff or just drop it man.
You did say it.
So where's the reference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by StuMyers
Rockter
Try a textbook on PDE's for discussion on time-averaged chaotic systems. Or, a sophmore-level textbook on thermodynamics. There's no scientific journal reference for something quite so basic.
Stu - If the climate is so predictable...if it's so "basic"... if it's so simple that any sophomore understands it...why didn't the "experts" predict this supposed change in the climate, long ago?
The AGW denier claim re:climate, is that climate is chaotic and inherently unpredictable. My claim, is THAT claim is confusing 'weather' and 'climate'. Climate is not chaotic, and IS much more easily predictable than weather. The fact that a time-averaged chaotic system is a non-chaotic system (on a similar time scale) is not something I'm able to explain on this forum. Any advanced PDE book will detail for you. On a simpler level, a sophmore thermo text will explain how when you add (via global radiative forcing in this case) energy to a system, the temperature of that system will rise. It really IS that simple. Add energy, temp goes up. I'm saying nothing about predicting LOCAL climate shifts. I don't know how hard that is.
And it WAS predicted 'long ago'. Like I wrote earlier, Carl Sagan, at least as far back as Cosmos, talks about it.
What else...? ah, right. No, GW isn't bad or good or anything. It's the expensive effect on infrastructure that is bad. If I thought that it would be cheaper to deal with rapid AGW than to try and slow it down, I'd advocate that.
No Stu, I don't mean with or without ANYTHING. Just how much should the earth be warming, or cooling, at any given moment in time.
To determine that the earth is warming more than it should be, there has to be some benchmark to measure by. We can say that because of warming this or that MAY happen, but, by what standard do we determine that the amount of warming is more than it should be?
In other words, is gw bad, or is it bad because of the possible consequences?
(couldn't load your link)
Just to be specific, in the link I provided is the IPCC meta-analysis detailing specific sources of radiative forcing (with error). The section starting on page 60 details forcing from non-man-made sources, and their contribution to the current warming trend. It's pretty good reading, especially (to me) the bit on short-term forcing due to volcanism.
