I would like to ask the denizens if you think that participation at Climate Etc. and elsewhere in the climate blogosphere has moderated your position on climate change in any way, and has increased your tolerance for opposing positions.
My position on climate change started some 15 years ago by observing the Milankovitch cycles.
Looking at that there are only 2 possible attitudes :
1) We clearly see evidence of pseudoperiodical chaotic oscillations that characterize the dynamics of the system for a large volume of the parameter space.
2) What we see is irrelevant and in any case has no meaning for the dynamics of the system in the future.
I strongly support 1) and in the “test” described,in the study I would have easily constructed a chain of arguments validating it. Of course the chain would not be “mechanistic” (in the sense of deterministically predictable) because the spatio temporal chaos per definition has not this property and this is something that the author of the study apparently ignored what shows that he has no clue about modern physics.
From there one can easily infer that :
- as the system just passed a minimum, It is tautologically heading to a (next) maximum. E.g it is necessarily warming.
- as it is necessarily warming with or without CO2, the anthropic CO2 is just one perturbation among the millions of degrees of freedom.
- the apparent stability of the climate attractor over 3 billions of years suggests that the topology is approximately invariant for a large interval of degrees of freedom. I cannot prove that but the existence of an attractor for N-S equations points also in this direction.
- from there follows that the CO2 perturbation on an infiitesimally small time scale (we are only talking about 1 century) can only change the derivatives of climatic variables but not the Milankovitch dynamics. E.g when we reach the next maximum, we will head to a (next) minimum again.
- last but not least all of the above means that the probability distribution of future dynamical states which is so dear to The Chief and to everybody familiar with non linear dynamics will be only slightly perturbed by the CO2 perturbation. And even this perturbation will tend to zero on larger time scales (millenium and above).
As this is what I think is right theory of climate, frequenting Climate Etc actually increased my intolerance for the CAGW addicts because I realised that they are painfully ignorant about the whole physical paradigm of non linear dynamics. Most of them don’t understand any physics at all and those who do, are stuck in the strict determinismus of the 19th century what is certainly inadequate to deal with one of the most complex dynamical systems we know – the climate.
It is like refusing quantum mechanics to establish a theory of atomic nuclei – a true wing nuttery.
