Two things jump out after first reading. The first is Schwartz being frank about the possibility he is wrong, when he says:
"This situation invites a scrutiny of the each of these findings for possible sources of error of interpretation in the present study."
The second would be when he says:
"It might also prove valuable to apply the present analysis approach to the output of global climate models to ascertain the fidelity with which these models reproduce "whole Earth" properties of the climate system such as are empirically determined here."
Perhaps it would be better if he were to run his technique in a model, to see whether or not his study can accurately predict the known values.
He estimates a time constant which is supposed to be descriptive for any climate perturbation. He notes that different researchers have found many different time scales for a variety of forcings. Volcanic eruptions are very short, because of the large amounts of effluent, and the nature of aerosols. Conversely, time scales for greenhouse gases are many decades before equillibrium is reached.
Models and the real climate system are actually governed by many different time scales. The atmosphere responds very quickly, while the ocean responds very slowly. Rapid forcings such as volcanoes will give an obviously quick time scale to the atmosphere. However, steady changes will make for long responses.
It's unrealistic to define a system as complex as our climate using a single time scale. Reminds me of Einstein and his search for the grand unified theory.
Edit: Note that the Meteorologist acknowledges that despite the increases in greenhouse gases, modest though they may seem, have not even begun to reach equilibrium in the atmosphere, as the change is slow in coming.
"This situation invites a scrutiny of the each of these findings for possible sources of error of interpretation in the present study."
The second would be when he says:
"It might also prove valuable to apply the present analysis approach to the output of global climate models to ascertain the fidelity with which these models reproduce "whole Earth" properties of the climate system such as are empirically determined here."
Perhaps it would be better if he were to run his technique in a model, to see whether or not his study can accurately predict the known values.
He estimates a time constant which is supposed to be descriptive for any climate perturbation. He notes that different researchers have found many different time scales for a variety of forcings. Volcanic eruptions are very short, because of the large amounts of effluent, and the nature of aerosols. Conversely, time scales for greenhouse gases are many decades before equillibrium is reached.
Models and the real climate system are actually governed by many different time scales. The atmosphere responds very quickly, while the ocean responds very slowly. Rapid forcings such as volcanoes will give an obviously quick time scale to the atmosphere. However, steady changes will make for long responses.
It's unrealistic to define a system as complex as our climate using a single time scale. Reminds me of Einstein and his search for the grand unified theory.
Edit: Note that the Meteorologist acknowledges that despite the increases in greenhouse gases, modest though they may seem, have not even begun to reach equilibrium in the atmosphere, as the change is slow in coming.
Last edited:
