Is there a climate change tipping point?

Tomcat

"the climate on Earth is not chaotic. Why? because 71% of this planet is covered by water, much of which is miles deep, which makes the oceans capable of retaining more than 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere, and the oceans supply a continuous stream of water vapor into the atmosphere."

The Earth's climate is not chaotic because it is covered mostly by water? Doesn't follow. But it does raise an interesting point:

blob:

"Either the climate is a chaotic system or it isn’t. It sure looks like one to me."

Is the climate system really chaotic? Certainly, the climate system does exhibit chaotic tendencies, but the short answer is: no, at least not globally and on meaningful timescales (to humans). Else GCMs and climate sensitivity estimates would be rather pointless.

--------

Edit:

"The geologic record indicates that Earths average temperature has not deviated more than 10 or 12 degrees over the last 2 billion years, thats pretty stable"

Stable relative to what? Anyhow, you seem to be using the layman definition of chaos. Chaos (mathematically defined) and bounded systems are not incompatible. Just the opposite.

Then again, I--like the majority--agree that the Earth's climate is not chaotic on meaningful timescales.

---------

Edit2:

Long response...

"The defining characteristic of a chaotic system is that it is non-linear and non-random..."

This is an incredibly simplified view of chaos--to the point of being misleading. These are not the only defining characteristics of chaos.

"I’m not sure what 'a meaningful timescale' is – the system is either chaotic or it isn’t. The climate is not linear and not random, obviously."

1) When I say "meaningful timescale" (as explained above), I mean a timescale that is meaningful to us--humans. Multidecadal to millennial.

2) A system can exhibit chaotic behavior on different timescales and different subsets of phase space, but the system may not be chaotic as a whole. It isn't necessarily one or the other.

"Another defining characteristic of chaotic systems is that they can flip between states suddenly and unpredictably. We already have paleo-climate studies that show ice ages can commence within decades."

Decades? Reference please. Anyhow, this is contrary to your definition, because these rapid transitions are predicted with reasonable accuracy.

"The climate is neither immune from our perturbations nor are the effects of these inputs entirely unpredictable. After the arctic melts and the albedo goes from 80% energy reflected to 80% energy absorbed, the climate is going to flip to another attractor. What exactly is going to happen may not be predictable, but what is 100% predictable is that there is going to be change."

This is a useless prediction. Again, what you are saying is that GCMs and climate sensitivity estimates are pointless.

The argument that the climate system is chaotic is common among deniers. Unfortunately, most deniers have no idea what chaos really is.

-------

Edit3:

"I can't recall the specific article, but the gist is that if the gulf stream (global conveyor) breaks down, after one summer of no snow melt the shift will be self-sustaining and within a decade the northern hemisphere (Europe at least) will be in ice age conditions. "

Similar to the Younger Dryas stadial (and other D-O events). These are very short lived (geologically speaking) and geographically limited. They certainly weren't transitions to or from glacial periods.

Again, these events can be modeled with reasonable accuracy.

-----

Edit4:

I realize I didn't full answer your original questions:

"Is there a climate change tipping point?"

Yes. Likely many, on many different scales.

"Is the climate system chaotic; and if so why would it be different than other chaotic systems?"

As Paul mentions, chaotic systems do not necessarily go to infinity. A new state may not be so drastically different than the previous.

"Are the current weather anomalies an example of 'the sudden variance between two distinct states'; and would there be any way to prove that the climate is 'squealing'?"

Probability becomes greater. I suspect that is why your article does not try force the idea that the climate system is currently in "squealing" mode--we can't know for sure.

-------

Edit5:

"I admit I am using the layman definition of chaos and I don't understand this statement. How can a subset of a system be chaotic and yet the system as a whole not be so?"

It's actually quite common. For example, Hamiltonian systems are generally thought of as nonchaotic, but can and do exhibit (weakly) chaotic behavior (as well as integrable) in different subsets of its phase space.

"So, if these events can be modeled with reasonable accuracy, do tell! "

See:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6665/ab...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/fu...

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_file...

And there are more.

Is there a tipping point, absolutely not, at least not on Earth, the climate on Earth is not chaotic. Why? because 71% of this planet is covered by water, much of which is miles deep, which makes the oceans capable of retaining more than 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere, and the oceans supply a continuous stream of water vapor into the atmosphere. So essentially the ocean's offer a tremendous buffer to Earths climate system, they always have and they always will as long as they remain in a liquid state. To suggest there is a tipping point, is to ignore the oceans and to ignore basic physics.

Bob

The geologic record indicates that Earths average temperature has not deviated more than 10 or 12 degrees over the last 2 billion years, thats pretty stable.

You ask the question as though there have been purely one climate tipping factor. various attainable ones have been pointed out, we'd have already got surpassed a minimum of two of them - arctic sea ice and permafrost soften. a significant difficulty with climate tipping factors is that we are in all hazard to be no longer able to % out a lot of them till their consequences are irreversible. a factor approximately your further info. the undeniable fact that there is ongoing noise in a length does no longer mean that the forcing function has long previous away. ought to you factor to something that has replaced that would end warming from persevering with? i might additionally decide to comprehend how a as we talk line plot that suppresses all guidance approximately variability contributes to a mature communicate. EDIT - for CO2 expeller "Pointing to fashions that have did no longer make precise predictions as a fashion to make a declare of exponential upward thrust in temps " you have made this assertion or a version many circumstances. i do no longer see Mr. Blob pointing to any fashions. i've got in no way seen any declare approximately exponential temperature upward thrust.How a pair of reference? Edit -your new plots coach the style properly. of direction, this DOES particularly do away with any argument you are able to have had approximately warming combating in 2000.

Dana already said that for purposes of positive feedback kicking in, 0.3 deg. C is a meaningless shift. It's been within 0.3 degrees C of the present temperature for about 25 years. Historically, it's been within 0.3 degrees C of the present temperature for centuries at a time, and no positive feedback was entered into - no runaway warming, no tipping point. Yes, there's a tipping point at some point - that's why when you look at the much longer-term history, CO2 increases lag temperature increases rather than precede them. But those were very significant temperature increases. And no tipping point was reached during more recent comparable warm periods that lasted centuries longer than the present period to date. Could something be different now? Sure. But we don't know that. I'm not suggesting that the evidence disproves the notion that we're approaching a tipping point but they certainly preclude simply assuming it, and then the policy question is a political one that turns on your standard for State action: whether imposing a significant burden on individual freedom is rightly done on a "we can't prove it but just in case" basis - and I don't think it is - particularly if "we can't prove it" is the case despite the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars to try to prove it (itself a significant burden).

'This “burden” that is constantly harped on is insignificant compared to the risk. '

Irrelevant. If we don't listen to Al Gore (substitute Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt or James Hansen if you wish), and he's right, then the world will change. If we don't listen to Pat Robertson and he's right, the world will end and we'll burn forever in Hell. Clearly the government should not be empowered to limit the activities that Pat Robertson wants it to limit, simply because of the severity of the harm that he alleges will result from the activity. The same standard must be applied to all proposed limits, whether they are proposed by someone in a white robe or a white lab coat. And honestly, you'd expect those in the white lab coats to be able to prove their claims.

It's very simple - prove it. You already get government funding for your efforts to prove it, which in a truly free society you wouldn't. Don't complain about your burden of proof - meet it.

Until then, "leaving the coal in the ground" borders on the criminal. Depriving society of a cheap, abundant source of energy on the basis of a "what if" is just wrong.

And frankly, even you do turn out to be right, it's still your fault if we don't listen to you - - for the same reason that it's the prosecutor's fault when he puts a weak case on and a guilty defendant is acquitted. There is a great disparity between the level of proof your side has and the level of arrogance your side displays.

An environmental tipping point is only conjecture. We can believe in a tipping point, but it can't be scientifically proven or disproven.

As it's been both significantly warmer and significantly cooler in the past, and we're here in the middle someplace, the reasonable conclusion is that it's not likely -- and if there is one, it's far away from where we are now. (And would be caused by changes in the sun... because it's powerful enough to make it happen.)

The climate system is changing constantly. All periods of history have recorded chaotic changes, from flood to drought, from cooling to warming.

It has been much warmer in this interglacial for much longer than technology and evil capitialists have been around. Speculating that we are approaching some tipping point is just typical baseless alarmism.

Why can't it have more than one tipping point?

study the maths of "chaos" if you must!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU&feature...

No question about it. In fact there are several, each of which can trigger other tipping points. Methane released from melting permafost and warming bogs, melting ice decreasing reflectivity, carbon sinks becoming saturated, etc.

Climate scientists have set the 2°C mark as the 'dangerous warming' level. After that point, we start to worry about tipping points.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009...

A key quote in the article:

"Before we reached a climate tipping point we'd expect to see lots of record heat and record cold,"

Sound familiar?