More Evidence Against The "hockey Stick"

[Gray-Wolf]

Would you still disagree with our ideas if they were peer-reviewed and not found wanting?

CB

You'll need to wait 'till then for the reply will you not?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Conclusions that mans effect on the climate is large? you advise that we should reduce consumption (with no guidance as to how) yet do not wish to engage in the fact that ,as we speak, man continues to amass his impacts on climate. Shall I procrastinate some more until you need concede that man's impacts on climate are a worry or can you possibly project and save us the time and planet?

How about expanding that to mans impact on the planet?

and whilst we are at it what about my questions regarding x+y=z?

as to V.P.'s questions where they not rhetorical?

What the hell are you blathering on about now, GW? Where have I said that we should do nothing? Where have I advocated procrastination? Why should I engage in a discussion that is not science-based when I have said that I am only interested in discussing the science?

I part-answered your question on x+y=z (namely by stating that your conclusions are based upon the assumption that man's impact is large). Your reasoning is sound, but your conclusions are questionable. Good enough answer?

I'm not sure why I should bother answering your questions, though, when you still have not answered mine.

As for VP's questions, I did not read them as rhetorical (though perhaps VP intended them to be - he would have to clarify that). I shall reprint those questions for you:

• What are the reasons that CO2 became so elevated?
• And, with an error of at least 5kyr, you know the temps, were greenhouse because?
• Why does such a driver have to be novel?
• The sun has been around longer than the Earth - is that long enough to account for geological time?

CB

[Devonian]

Would you still disagree with our ideas if they were peer-reviewed and not found wanting?

CB

You'd have a LOT more wind in your sails if it were in Nature, Science, GRL or similar, if it were in E&E you'd be going backwards...

[Admiral_Bobski]

You'll need to wait 'till then for the reply will you not?

For a definitive answer, yes. I was wondering how open-minded Dev was about our ideas.

CB

You'd have a LOT more wind in your sails if it were in Nature, Science, GRL or similar, if it were in E&E you'd be going backwards...

Clearly we would. I am not saying we have stumbled upon the answer, but we have stumbled across something very interesting.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

• What are the reasons that CO2 became so elevated?
• And, with an error of at least 5kyr, you know the temps, were greenhouse because?
• Why does such a driver have to be novel?
• The sun has been around longer than the Earth - is that long enough to account for geological time?

The main reason (amongst the gaggle that sought to place us into this novel position ) was tectonics ( and not just the mountain building but the subduction of Jurassic/Cretaceous strata rich in the carbon from those era's[chalk limestones calcite sandstones] though, as we often appear to find in this subject, things are never just that simple!

The impacts of the initial warming will have triggered secondary releases of CO2 ,be it via continental shelf slumping and the rapid Cathrite releases these trigger (due to increased tectonic activity) burning in the regions impacted by the flood basalts, die back (and burning) in the areas transferring from tropical rainforest's to Savannah and of course the thawing of the permafrosts formed since the end of the cretaceous with the subsequent release of their methane/carbon. If we look at the migration of the oil/natural gas in the regions we exploit today we also find them exploiting the tectonic stresses prevalent at the time and not all of these 'reserves' were 'trapped' within reservoir strata or 'capped' in place by impervious strata but were exposed to the atmosphere by them emerging at surface level (like the U.S. tar pits today or Canadian/dorset oil sands or the bitumen in the Red Sea).

As ever with rapid change (in geological time) 'impacts' are also mooted as a possible contributor to the CO2 levels (depending on where and what they struck).

I'm not as clear on Q2 as to your drive but I'll answer it as I understand it.

5Kyrs over a 15 million yr span is a near as an instantaneous effect wouldn't you say? (there is a lol there btw)

The time spans we are examining here (to me) are vast and you would expect, statistically, to have your own 'wiggle room' built in would you not? I think it dangerous to say that 'this happened then' as an absolute fact when you know it to be a reconstruction.Is it not equally as dangerous to say that this 5k yr period existed (in fact) at that time?

'Novel'

When we are looking at a long expanse of time and know that the drivers we are prey to today will have had equal sway throughout that time period would you not seek for;

1/ a new driver appearing

2/an existing driver exerting influence above and beyond it's normal ranges (acting in a novel way)

As for the last question/statement I am truely lost as to what it means and where it is directed.

The evolution of the sun ,and it's own settling into the regular patterns we see in it's middle age, do not appear to be of relevance?

Can we not safely assume that for the past 100 million years it's operating has been much the same as it is now and will be for the next 100 million years? Even if we push back and forwards a billion years would we expect (from what we know of stars similar to ours) there to be any marked differences it it's operating?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

The main reason (amongst the gaggle that sought to place us into this novel position ) was tectonics ( and not just the mountain building but the subduction of Jurassic/Cretaceous strata rich in the carbon from those era's[chalk limestones calcite sandstones] though, as we often appear to find in this subject, things are never just that simple!

<snip>

As ever with rapid change (in geological time) 'impacts' are also mooted as a possible contributor to the CO2 levels (depending on where and what they struck).

A good answer - little that can be argued with there.

I'm not as clear on Q2 as to your drive but I'll answer it as I understand it.

5Kyrs over a 15 million yr span is a near as an instantaneous effect wouldn't you say? (there is a lol there btw)

The time spans we are examining here (to me) are vast and you would expect, statistically, to have your own 'wiggle room' built in would you not? I think it dangerous to say that 'this happened then' as an absolute fact when you know it to be a reconstruction.Is it not equally as dangerous to say that this 5k yr period existed (in fact) at that time?

So now we can't compare the current 100+ year period with the past, due to the uncertainties involved?

'Novel'

When we are looking at a long expanse of time and know that the drivers we are prey to today will have had equal sway throughout that time period would you not seek for;

1/ a new driver appearing

2/an existing driver exerting influence above and beyond it's normal ranges (acting in a novel way)

How do we know that today's drivers will have had equal sway throughout that time period? Why does there have to be a new driver? Or, if you go for option 2, why does a driver have to be exerting an effect above its "normal" ranges? And what are any given driver's "normal" ranges?

As for the last question/statement I am truely lost as to what it means and where it is directed.

The evolution of the sun ,and it's own settling into the regular patterns we see in it's middle age, do not appear to be of relevance?

Can we not safely assume that for the past 100 million years it's operating has been much the same as it is now and will be for the next 100 million years? Even if we push back and forwards a billion years would we expect (from what we know of stars similar to ours) there to be any marked differences it it's operating?

Tough question - can we make that assumption? There are aspects of solar mechanics that we still don't understand and, as the current prolonged sunspot minimum has shown, predicting a star's behaviour is a tall order. Working out what it was doing in the past is almost as hard, though at least there are proxies on Earth that can give an indication of periods of high and low activity.

The way the Sun works may not change over periods of millions or even billions of years, but what the Sun was actually doing at any given time is a bit more variable.

CB

[VillagePlank]

Myself, I hope you and VP publish your ideas but I'm afraid I (as I've said) don't agree with them.

I, personally, find it very difficult to disagree with an argument that hasn't been published, or said, yet. Maybe you can, but I can't.

[Gray-Wolf]

I can't emphasise enough the size of brush I'm using and I'm sorry if this side of the topic appears to be a 're-visit' but ,to me, if the question of GHG's is not addressed and their impacts (generally) are agreed upon I cannot see the reason to choose to push the issue aside and focus on the other areas.

The sun and it's workings; we know of many stars like our own and at varying stages of their lives and ,from our observational abilities, no great changes appear to occur once the star has collapsed to it's stable size (and the 'reactor' is turned on) until the fuel is near depleted and the final dimming/expansion occurs. I know the brush strokes are very large and that the finer details we gain/are gaining from our knowledge of our own sun but I see no evidence for periodic changes in intensity in either the rocks exposed to it's particles or the reaction of the stromata of fossil foliage (as a direct response to such changes). I have to think that ,within it's own minor variability, the suns output is stable and so over the long periods of time we are grappling with these changes (up or down) even themselves out.

I know it is tempting to pull hard focus but I think, when forced to view over such time periods,but maybe it is more helpful to keep the 'wide lens' as it enables us to both allow the many cyclical influences to 'even out' their influences (as they appear to do over the long 'stable' phases) and also to get a 'flavour' of conditions over such extended periods (so we can isolate the impacts of elevated greenhouse gas levels ,at specific periods in the recent geological ,and compare them with periods of lower levels of GHG's).

If we can accept that the many varied drivers will tend to even themselves out over such extended periods (and find no reason to expect other major drivers, of over a million year plus cyclical pattern, to have been 'missed' in our studies on paleo climate) can we not expect to see the levels of temp certain 'strengths ' of GHG forcings will sustain and what 'strengths of GHG's' certain global temps will sustain?

I know this is incredibly simplistic but if we can all agree on what it is that we are seeing (at 'big brush stroke' level) then maybe it will be time to argue over the minor cyclical drivers and their combinations/impacts as we gloss in the finer details?

Speaking of which ,back to my 'Buckingham Green' Skirting boards and windows.........

[Admiral_Bobski]

I can't emphasise enough the size of brush I'm using and I'm sorry if this side of the topic appears to be a 're-visit' but ,to me, if the question of GHG's is not addressed and their impacts (generally) are agreed upon I cannot see the reason to choose to push the issue aside and focus on the other areas.

Who is pushing the issue aside, GW? What I am doing is examining the issue in rather more detail than you are willing to. The issue in question is, broadly speaking, "what causes climate change?" One way of examining this question is by approaching it from a different angle. For many scientists, CO2 seems to fit the bill, but does anything else fit the bill? Can we organise a line-up that consists of more than one suspect? I believe we can.

The sun and it's workings; we know of many stars like our own and at varying stages of their lives and ,from our observational abilities, no great changes appear to occur once the star has collapsed to it's stable size (and the 'reactor' is turned on) until the fuel is near depleted and the final dimming/expansion occurs. I know the brush strokes are very large and that the finer details we gain/are gaining from our knowledge of our own sun but I see no evidence for periodic changes in intensity in either the rocks exposed to it's particles or the reaction of the stromata of fossil foliage (as a direct response to such changes). I have to think that ,within it's own minor variability, the suns output is stable and so over the long periods of time we are grappling with these changes (up or down) even themselves out.

It all depends upon what you mean by "great changes". As far as we know, our star is not likely to go supernova any time soon (or, indeed, at all - it is not massive enough for that) - that would certainly be a great change. But what about phenomena such as the Maunder Minimum? Do you consider that to be a "great change"? It may have been subtle, but it seems to have had a rather dramatic impact on Earth's climate.

Your "broad brush strokes" gloss over changes on the scale of the Maunder Minimum, but history has shown that these changes are relevant to us here on Earth. How many Maunder or Dalton type events have there been over the past 50 million years? What was their frequency? What was their duration? These are important questions.

And a quick point about the fossil record - it is incomplete, as we all know. Fossils are laid down discretely, and offer only snapshots of moments in history. A fern fossil can be overlaid on another fern fossil with virtually nothing separating them, but the difference in ages of the two fossils can be thousands upon thousands of years. The fossil record offers us glimpses of the past, but far from a complete record. If any given phenomenon spends most of the time trundling along happily within what is considered "normal" variation, but can dramatically alter for a short span of time (say a few thousand years), the odds of capturing that alteration in the fossil record are slim at best.

Once again, your broad brush strokes eliminate this uncertainty.

I know it is tempting to pull hard focus but I think, when forced to view over such time periods,but maybe it is more helpful to keep the 'wide lens' as it enables us to both allow the many cyclical influences to 'even out' their influences (as they appear to do over the long 'stable' phases) and also to get a 'flavour' of conditions over such extended periods (so we can isolate the impacts of elevated greenhouse gas levels ,at specific periods in the recent geological ,and compare them with periods of lower levels of GHG's).

If we can accept that the many varied drivers will tend to even themselves out over such extended periods (and find no reason to expect other major drivers, of over a million year plus cyclical pattern, to have been 'missed' in our studies on paleo climate) can we not expect to see the levels of temp certain 'strengths ' of GHG forcings will sustain and what 'strengths of GHG's' certain global temps will sustain?

It is not "tempting" to pull hard focus - it is absolutely essential. If you wait for every influence to even out then you end up with no information of any value whatsoever. Why not even out the past couple of thousand years and give ourselves a nice average temperature which correlates with nothing and is, therefore, completely useless?

I know this is incredibly simplistic but if we can all agree on what it is that we are seeing (at 'big brush stroke' level) then maybe it will be time to argue over the minor cyclical drivers and their combinations/impacts as we gloss in the finer details?

The problem here is that we can't agree on what we see at your broad brush stroke level - you see what confirms your beliefs and I see what confirms mine. The only way to seek resolution is to fill in the details. You can't paint the Sistine Chapel roof with a 6-inch emulsion brush.

CB

[jonboy]

I have t disagree with you GW.

I don't believe that CO2 levels have the large impact as a GHG as people would like to think.I do not believe the theory postulated has been proven in the really world as the numerous other players have not been properly considered.

In regard to your comments in regard to the sun its not that the sun's output perse that is the problem. Yes the sun's output is pretty constant but its effect can change quite dramatically. As an example of what I mean take a bonfire in the depths of winter on acold windy night if you walk round the fire at the same distance you will feel diferent levels of heat as you go and different levels of cold.

Although the sun's output is generally the same the helisphere/strength of solar wind varies which allows different levels of cosmic rays to hit us and its these that research is beging to show as the cold wind. It is thought that this is by far the greater influence on our climate and not CO2

[VillagePlank]

5Kyrs over a 15 million yr span is a near as an instantaneous effect wouldn't you say? (there is a lol there btw)

The time spans we are examining here (to me) are vast and you would expect, statistically, to have your own 'wiggle room' built in would you not? I think it dangerous to say that 'this happened then' as an absolute fact when you know it to be a reconstruction.Is it not equally as dangerous to say that this 5k yr period existed (in fact) at that time?

So, if I have it right ...

• We have an isotopic temperature reconstruction historically.
  
• We have an atmospheric gas reconstruction historically.
  
• Both have known error rate of at least 5000 years. Indeed after about 400,000 years the error rate rises exponentially - perhaps as much as 100,000 year.
  
• We apply any correlations we find to 100 years, and model such correlations such that they form a basis for the the next 100 - 300 years.
  
• We get a conclusion.
  

That's the basic premise? Does anyone apart from me feel at all uncomfortable with that?

Edited October 23, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

So, if I have it right ...

• We have an isotopic temperature reconstruction historically.
  
• We have an atmospheric gas reconstruction historically.
  
• Both have known error rate of at least 5000 years. Indeed after about 400,000 years the error rate rises exponentially - perhaps as much as 100,000 year.
  
• We apply any correlations we find to 100 years, and model such correlations such that they form a basis for the the next 100 - 300 years.
  
• We get a conclusion.
  

That's the basic premise? Does anyone apart from me feel at all uncomfortable with that?

I would if you had it right - I don't think you have.

But, I'm not an ice core specialist, and neither, as far as I am aware, are you. I would answer your points using what I know - but bitter and unpleasant past experience teaches me to doubt that would suffice... So, I propose you ask an ice core expert about your points and report back, will you do that please?

[VillagePlank]

I would if you had it right - I don't think you have.

But, I'm not an ice core specialist, and neither, as far as I am aware, are you. I would answer your points using what I know - but bitter and unpleasant past experience teaches me to doubt that would suffice... So, I propose you ask an ice core expert about your points and report back, will you do that please?

Forunately, like most good scientists they publish their work in respected journals. I posted this a few pages ago ...

... a good paper (widely accepted = good) is Petite et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from Vostok ice core, Antarctica, Nature, Vol 399, 3 June 1999 and their correlation of CH₄ and CO₂ to isotopic temperatures is r²=0.71 (which is strong) but it correlates only to periods that were actually measurable. For instance, their error rate is "better than +/- 15kyr, better than +/- 10kyr for most of the record, and better than +/- 5kyr for the last 110kyr" (p432, sidebar) ....

Petit1999.pdf

Edited October 23, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Forunately, like most good scientists they publish their work in respected journals. I posted this a few pages ago ...

... a good paper (widely accepted = good) is Petite et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from Vostok ice core, Antarctica, Nature, Vol 399, 3 June 1999 and their correlation of CH₄ and CO₂ to isotopic temperatures is r²=0.71 (which is strong) but it correlates only to periods that were actually measurable. For instance, their error rate is "better than +/- 15kyr, better than +/- 10kyr for most of the record, and better than +/- 5kyr for the last 110kyr" (p432, sidebar) ....

and the paper is widely available, for free, on the internet.

Right, better than +/-15kyr for all the record. That doesn't mean it IS +/- 15kyr but that is is better than that...

Anyway, I'm not getting into that because I know it's no win for me. Again, I think you should ask an ice core specialist. If you don't then, if I can find one and the time, I will.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Right, better than +/-15kyr for all the record. That doesn't mean it IS +/- 15kyr but that is is better than that...

Anyway, I'm not getting into that because I know it's no win for me. Again, I think you should ask an ice core specialist. If you don't then, if I can find one and the time, I will.

Spot on. Increasing error rates, as one would reasonably expect, as you go back in time - in this case +/- 15kyr error rate up to 420,000 years ago. I believe that GW is talking about millions of years ago. My stab in the dark at an error rate for that time period, of about 100k years, I thought, was quite generous.

Anyway, I await GW's 50 million year temperature/gas reconstruction, but, until then, this paper is the best that I can find. I don't, unfortunately, know any ice-core experts, and I doubt that that would help, anyway, it's the extrapolation of their findings that worries me, not the findings themselves being that, in my view, the Petite et al paper is science par excellence.

Edited October 23, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

So, if I have it right ...

• We have an isotopic temperature reconstruction historically.
• We have an atmospheric gas reconstruction historically.
• Both have known error rate of at least 5000 years. Indeed after about 400,000 years the error rate rises exponentially - perhaps as much as 100,000 year.
• We apply any correlations we find to 100 years, and model such correlations such that they form a basis for the the next 100 - 300 years.
• We get a conclusion.

That's the basic premise? Does anyone apart from me feel at all uncomfortable with that?

If I might add to that, that only covers the temporal anomaly, and doesn't even address the uncertainty in the temperature and gas levels themselves. (Admittedly the general trends will be the same, even if the magnitude is uncertain, but I've spent the past couple of days addressing the issue of uncertainty so I thought I'd take the opportunity to ram the point home! )

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

Right, better than +/-15kyr for all the record. That doesn't mean it IS +/- 15kyr but that is is better than that...

Anyway, I'm not getting into that because I know it's no win for me. Again, I think you should ask an ice core specialist. If you don't then, if I can find one and the time, I will.

Technically it means that any given data point can be off by anything up to 15,000 years.

But don't be reluctant to engage in discussion just because you feel it may be no win for you - I've been on these boards for bloomin' ages now, and I've spent most of that time feeling like it's no win. Still, you can't have a good discussion without a discussion.

CB

[VillagePlank]

My problem with it is, actually, rather simple.

If I took an average of 5000 months of the CET series, and then used that to say important things about one month, one season, or even 100 months, people would think me a lunatic.

[Gray-Wolf]

My problem with it is, actually, rather simple.

If I took an average of 5000 months of the CET series, and then used that to say important things about one month, one season, or even 100 months, people would think me a lunatic.

Only because we know that something truely exceptional, on a global scale didn't happen ocer those months V.P.!

If a 10km rock had hit the mid Pacific in one of those month then I bet you could spot it by it's global impact....or not?

When we know we have an event, lasting for a reasonable amount of time in it's impacts on our global climate, then the 'noise' of eberything else is easily to 'flaten out' in their influences ....or not

Either we accept this exceptional time from our recent geological past and note it's differences to our current glacial age or we deny it's interpretation as 'relavent', in detail or quality, of information and dismiss the science that brought us such.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Only because we know that something truely exceptional, on a global scale didn't happen ocer those months V.P.!

If a 10km rock had hit the mid Pacific in one of those month then I bet you could spot it by it's global impact....or not?

When we know we have an event, lasting for a reasonable amount of time in it's impacts on our global climate, then the 'noise' of eberything else is easily to 'flaten out' in their influences ....or not

Either we accept this exceptional time from our recent geological past and note it's differences to our current glacial age or we deny it's interpretation as 'relavent', in detail or quality, of information and dismiss the science that brought us such.

Three questions:

1. What, other than the 10km rock thing, do you class as "exceptional"?

2. Why do you class the current time period as exceptional?

3. If the current 100-year event is exceptional then how can you rule out exceptional 100-year events in a record that lacks resolution at that scale?

CB

[VillagePlank]

I don't accept that, GW.

If averages of data over very long time-spans were useful for spotting unusual events then surely we'd see them in use, say, by the CET thread, by the ONS, indeed, by almost all other facets of life.

Such practices are not common, because they are not useful - and don't forget that here, we are taking an average with at least an error rate of 5000 years, concluding a correlation, and then applying that conclusion to a timespan that is orders of magnitude smaller.

My contention is that the only thing we can say, with any degree of certainty, is that there is a strong correlation of CO₂/isotopic (we'll get to what that means later) temperature over very long periods of time. If you don't accept that, then I will average the entire CET series, give you a figure, and you can tell me whether there will be white christmas (in London) this year - which I would consider exceptional!

Anyway, that is not to say that the correlation does not hold for smaller timeframes than 5kyr. It might well do, and there is some (laboratory) evidence that shows that to be the case. However, we know that the CO₂/temp relationship does not have a strong decadal signal - such that it is easily overriden by ENSO, and other internal and external climate factors.

So, how, rationally, can we deal with such a strong correlation as demonstrated in the paper - but apply it, usefully, to much smaller timeframes than the known error rate?

Edited October 24, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sorry if I am upsetting you with my position and I obviously feel as 'mis-understood as you feel me to be 'mis-understanding. V.P.

When I look at fractals I see that marvellous, almost amonites/goniatite like 'saddle and lobe' suture line, before me.

As I draw in the images changes though remains the same.

As I pull out the same thing occurs and the 'image' ,though changing, remains the same.

To my simple mind the 'brush strokes' I use does just this to the temp/Greenhouse gas levels over time.

Yes we can zoom in and see the CO2 /temp plot for a year in the northern hemisphere and temp/CO2 drops away and rises in it's yearly pattern.

I can pull out and see the same varying picture over longer periods where global temps and greenhouse gasses, over hundreds of thousands/million of years, shows just that again.

What I am looking at is incredibly simplistic and does not need the levels of complexity that some deem absolutely necessary.

I'm only gaining a 'flavour' , I'm not after the recipe.

So again I find myself hauling us back to whether (or not) we can see a relationship between global temp and Greenhouse gasses over the past 55 million years?

I'm not at the point of needing any other answer (7 year olds seem get bogged down so easily when you introduce the complexities ,I find) other than "Do we see a relationship?"

[VillagePlank]

I'm sorry if I am upsetting you with my position and I obviously feel as 'mis-understood as you feel me to be 'mis-understanding. V.P.

I'm not upset.

When I look at fractals I see that marvellous, almost amonites/goniatite like 'saddle and lobe' suture line, before me. As I draw in the images changes though remains the same. As I pull out the same thing occurs and the 'image' ,though changing, remains the same. To my simple mind the 'brush strokes' I use does just this to the temp/Greenhouse gas levels over time.

Yes we can zoom in and see the CO2 /temp plot for a year in the northern hemisphere and temp/CO2 drops away and rises in it's yearly pattern. I can pull out and see the same varying picture over longer periods where global temps and greenhouse gasses, over hundreds of thousands/million of years, shows just that again.

What I am looking at is incredibly simplistic and does not need the levels of complexity that some deem absolutely necessary. I'm only gaining a 'flavour' , I'm not after the recipe.

So again I find myself hauling us back to whether (or not) we can see a relationship between global temp and Greenhouse gasses over the past 55 million years?

I'm not at the point of needing any other answer (7 year olds seem get bogged down so easily when you introduce the complexities ,I find) other than "Do we see a relationship?"

Well ...

I can't really comment on the 55 million year question because I'm still looking for the paper that demonstrates such a thing. I am not saying it isn't there, I am saying I can't find one that goes back that far. That's why I introduced the Petite paper.

If you want to use fractals then the amount of criteria required just to meet self-affinity, let alone fractal self-similarity, is a huge mountain to climb and requires a lot of expertise in topology and multi-dimensional geometry, of which, on both counts, I am a rank amateur, so I need to do lots of learning; however, I shall give it a go ....

What we see in the Petite paper, suggests that the CO2/Temp correlation is stuck on at least a 5kyr error (+/- makes it at least 10kyr) that increases a lot as we go back in time. So, on the face of it - self-similarity is out, and we are left with self-affinity, which puts us in the realm of qualitative judgements, not quantitative - unless we can have some dependent, and, of course, independent yardstick to measure quantitatively.

Not to say there is no value in qualitative judgements, but what would you say to me if I proposed a theory and just said, "...because qualitatively, it looks right, to me!" I suspect you would, quite rightly too, in my opinion, roundly criticise it and say that such a proposal is unscientific, and dismiss it out of hand.

Relying on fractals so that a 'larger' paintbrush can be used, is, in my opinion, weak - because of it's lack of quantification at such a broad stroke - but it is not without merit. But all the merit is in the detail, not in the whole.

Edited October 25, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you for your patience with me V.P. and also the depth you are willing to plumb, within a subject/area, before committing your 'take' to post.

I do appreciate it and I do intend , in a very Borg way, to assimilate it into my 'understandings' on things.

[VillagePlank]

Thank you for your patience with me V.P. and also the depth you are willing to plumb, within a subject/area, before committing your 'take' to post. I do appreciate it and I do intend , in a very Borg way, to assimilate it into my 'understandings' on things.

Woah - slow down soldier

I have spent the best part of my 35 years studying, and learning systems theory, of which, encompasses all such things that I might mention in such a discussion as this.

That doesn't mean anything, of course - and whilst you might not be interested to sit with me and a C compiler and look at how we can play with anisotropic scaling (required for data sets that require self-affinity, and, not as widely awkward as one might imagine, actually; most Windows developers specifiy such things when they start to set up their own device contexts) I would, I imagine, be absolutely blown away with what you know should we end up on Dorset's Jurassic coast!

Each to their own, and each to bring their own experience to the table, in my view.

Edited October 25, 2009 by VillagePlank