Professor Stephen Belcher, Head of the Met Office Hadley Centre and chair of the meeting, said: “Ultimately what we’ve seen in each of these seasons is shifts in the position of the jet stream which impact our weather in certain ways at different times of year.
“The key question is what is causing the jet stream to shift in this way? There is some research to say some parts of the natural system load the dice to influence certain states of the jet stream, but this loading may be further amplified by climate change.”
In other news, spending your paycheck has been shown to be due to spending your paycheck.
“In other news, spending your paycheck has been shown to be due to spending your paycheck.”
Actually, economists are still debating that one.
To quote from Prof Robert G Brown Of Duke University on GCMs and Global Warming
http://www.science20.com/virtual_worlds/blog/guest_comments_gcms_and_global_warming_prof_robert_g_brown_duke_university-115271
In other words Prof. Belcher chaos rules and your compute models can’t do it.
Not really a problem. If you assume the climate is essentially the linear projection of forcings, then it’s not so hard to prove a prediction wrong. Since this is what the IPCC claims, establishing that they are wrong is not so hard.
Yep, that’s the way out of the naturally chaotic system, we’ll just iron out the variables at the stroke of a spreadsheet. Regression works on chaotic attractors – doesn’t it?
Belief in chaos in the natural world is anti-science. Science is about reducing the apparent chaos to known causes and effects, finding the chain of cause and effect that describes each observed phenomonon; it is about simplifying the workings of the world thereby, making them thoroughly understandable and understood. There is no room for chaos in science, that is just a late-20th century fad that became one of the latest, easy dogmas for miseducated students of science to spout proudly. What Dr. Brown is really trying to say is, there is no competent climate science yet. He just doesn’t know how to say it, probably not even how to accept it.
The fact that in climate science we are as yet to define all the variables and all the dynamic and interrelating processes, the feedbacks, the couplings, the dependencies is bad enough. We also do not know, and will never find out, the starting condition or a condition that can closely mimic a known time in our climate conditions when we do know all of these relationships and their values. Or at least this cannot be seen in a realizable future time (IMO)
So yes I agree climate is chaotic, or at lease damn close. It is variable enough for us not to see the whole pattern that defines climate because we have yet to find all the tools required that allows us to know what else is needed. I do not see this changing much in my, or the next few generations – IMO we are that far from solving the problem. Though I live in the hope of being proved wrong on timescale, I very much doubt it.
But the climate problem is ultimately scientifically solvable.
To cut it down I defer to
? Donald Rumsfeld
Why surprised? That is enshrined in international law!
The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) defines in Para. 2. “Climate change” means a change of climate…. „ discussed here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202-open-letter.html .
The starting point of nonsense is that “climate” is generally defined as average weather (by WMO and others) without defining “weather” in the first place. It is a comparison between apples and pears. One item has a physical background; the other item is a ‘man-made’ technical mean, which we know as “statistics”. “Weather” consists of many dozen components (AMS-Glossary), which can be described in many hundred ways. The statistics of single physical element, or specification of atmospheric behaviour, remain an abstract mean. More here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
Anthropomorphised “Climate change” is now classified as a problem gambler and a corrupt one at that! “Loaded the dice”!?? He needs to go to gamblers anonymous and clean up his act.
The only people loading the dice right now are those brave souls rowing through the arctic. They have chosen the coldest year in the last decade to take a trip across the top of Canada. Hope they watched the film “Scott of the Antarctic” before they left to see what they might end up like. “We will remember them”.
If I follow this guy “loading the dice,” which is done to get more prdictable results in craps, for example, produces less predictable results in the shell game known as climate “science”.
“There is some research to say…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-oA0o_YOf4
So professor Belcher is saying they don’t really have a consensus on anything and no science has been settled. I’m expecting he’ll do the right thing and advise Gore and Pachauri.