Winstonm, on 2011-December-16, 21:51, said:
None specifically. But chaos theory is built on the principle that small (some same minute) changes can have dramatic consequences for the final outcome in dynamic systems like weather systems. If it can be agreed that increased global industrialization has increased CO2, it would seem to me that a climate skeptic would be able to explain why this increase will not cause an affect as chaos theory would seem to indicate.
My problem is that one side offers data, while the skeptic side offers narrative explanations. I put more stock in data unless the skeptic can demonstrate his own model or opposing data.
So far, major, well-funded skeptics who have challenged the data have found it to be sound.
I have not heard of chaos theory being invoked in the climate change debate (and I have been through a lot of data and explanations from both sides of the fence). I cannot speak to the issue but that does not mean that it may or may not have an effect. Your best bet would be to post that same question at Realclimate to see how they answer. AFAIK they are still supporting the "CO2 causes all the problems" meme (that we have yet to experience nor provide real observational data that they exist). There certainly are a plethora of model projections to indicate doom but the models lack a certain....veracity.
Is CO2 increasing? We agreed that it is, as measured at Mauna Loa.
Is that increase the result of man's industrial activity? It certainly appears to be a significant factor.
Do we quantitatively know any of the effects of increasing CO2 on the planet or biosphere? Theory states that for every doubling of CO2, we should observe a diminishing increase in greenhouse effect. Approximately 1.2 deg. C for the first doubling and diminishing logarithmically thereafter. Actual measurements have yet to show a clear indication of this effect because of natural variation swamping the signal. In the past history of the planet, it has exhibited remarkable changes in climate, none of which appear to correlate to CO2. Since we daily experience global temperature swings in excess of over 20 deg. C (day to night temps) it appears that the climate system is remarkably stable in terms of maintaining equilibrium.
The current rise in CO2 is also associated with an increase in biomass which accounts for the approx. 6% improvement in the greening of the planet and improved food supply (despite diversions to biofuel).
My problem is that one side offers data, while the skeptic side offers narrative explanations. I put more stock in data unless the skeptic can demonstrate his own model or opposing data.
I am glad you clarified which side you meant. All of the data is with the skeptics. All of the model projections (and only the model projections) are with the warmists. All of the available data, to date, refutes the warmist model-generated proposals.
Well-funded skeptics? You have to get better informed about where the money goes. 1000 to 1 in favor of the warmist crowd.