You're right. I jumped unjustifiably to a conclusion. And it had
nothing to do with chaos theory or with climate models which deal in
decades, not days. It's just the understanding that temperature
measurement over a very large geographic area is frought with trouble
and over the whole earth even more so.
As your own link points out no one can yet agree whether the observed
temperature variation is due to the grounding of flights and the effect
on contrails/clouds (little understood) or random variation. It's
statistically within the realm of normal variability.
I'm calm. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/9/2011 7:42 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 8/9/2011 4:18 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Is that the claim? That the aircraft were grounded due to ash from the
>> eruption of Eyjafjallajökull? If so then I don't know how you separate
>> the effect of the ash cloud (which also contains massive amounts of CO2)
>> from changes in emissions from reduced flying.
>>
>> Furthermore, I'll still bet that measuring the effect on global
>> temperature is extraordinarily difficult and, in particular, assigning
>> responsibility to the two different parts of the equation. I'm still
>> willing to give 30 days to find a reputable citation.
>
> Easy there, Calm down, Chuck.
>
> I have skipped most of this thread, especially the links. As I understand the
> thread itself, and your contributions, you
> are saying that the data is questionable and the models downright useless.
>
> I generally agree with that. We don't know all the important variables, don't
> understand very well some of those we do
> know, can't measure many of them very reliably, have limited historical data
> for most - and, most of them are non-linear.
>
> One of the roots of the discovery/development of chaos/uncertainty theory was
> early work on weather prediction. In other
> words, it was trying to predict short term climate events that led to the
> discovery that it is not possible to predict
> many things that we thought would one day be predictable. I believe that
> climate change is one of those things.
>
> So, as far as I am concerned, all the endless stuff written and said about it
> is just chaff before the wind. Hence my
> cursory attention to this thread.
>
> Nevertheless, I think it would be good for both your health and the general
> tenor of list discussion if you were to cool
> down a little bit, not read what's not there into casual posts, cut those who
> aren't being precise a little slack - and
> be more careful yourself.
>
> Boris referred to a well documented event, but did so without great precision
> "grounding the aircraft of few countries
> for three days produced noticeable temperature change". But you jumped to a
> conclusion, that he was referring to global
> temperatures, and ran off on a rant on that basis.
>
> He was, in fact, referring to ground temperatures in North America in the
> three days after 9/11. Whatever they may mean
> in any larger context, the event is well documented.
> <http://www.celsias.com/article/9-11-contrail-climate-effects-questioned/>
>
> Serenity Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|