Daviy,

Even the references you provided,(the ones that work that is) skim over the wind effect.

They refer to the powerful effect of the winds on the southern oceans but take it no further, as far as I can tell.

Commons sense dictates that unless and until they can deal with the earths rotation and winds (and the effect of the Andes etc ) then they havnt done their job.

All the rest is very interesting but I do note that it involves very long time scales.

mil-observer refers to an interesting comment regarding global cooling.

I attended a seminar given by a climate scientist back in 2000 (just before global warming became flavor of the month) who made the observation that the Earth was most likely to recede into a period of global cooling.

His address was sober and objective unlike most of the debate around today. A sideline to his talk was that the atmospheric heating effect of modern industry would to some degree offset a period of global cooling in the near-future.

That was the last time I ever heard anything along these lines - maybe because any scientist who does so will be branded a heretic in the current climate.

Bugsy

Why ... thank you.

I do despise the much too common, today, spirit of conformity, the snide and open criticism of those who think differently from the norm.

It's no wonder I live in isolation on a yacht.

But it's ok I've warned my neighbours ... if they upset me ... I will simply sink them.

bigmal.
My knowledge of wind patterns comes from the study of metrology for my commercial pilot license, and the practical use of this knowledge in flight planning. I am not a scientist.
As I understand air flows parallel to the equator are rotational. Hence fly high or fly low depending on direction.
The flows equator to poles are temperature driven. This comes about because the upper air at its highest point, (the equator) move outwards, sinking and cooling as it goes towards the lowest point (the poles) with some of the air dropping along the way. At the poles the upper atmosphere air drops and makes it way back to the equator at low level in the characteristic wavy patterns you see on the weather map, becoming warmer as it does so. At the equator the warm air rises and then continues back to the poles.

Both air and water are fluids and follow the same basic characteristic and flow patterns. The modification to the flows of each by interaction with the other is irrelevant because if one stops they both stop. The engines are rotation and temperature.

If the equator/pole temperature gradient becomes zero (unlikely) the north/south flows stops for both air and water. If that happens, or suffers a significant decrease (possible) we are in real trouble. This is why in GW (or Global cooling) distribution of temperature is more important than temperature. The ice caps melting are an inconvenience, decreasing temperature differential potentially catastrophic.
Things are, or they are not. What you consider 'common sense' makes no difference to anything. Things remain as they are, or as they are not.
My objection to your post was not that you had a different view but that you should deem yourself capable of making the judgment about who is 'silly'.
In this debate there are many different views and possibilities, and nobody yet knows what is correct and what is not. I have a particular view at this stage (which could change) but I am not about to insult anyone who has differing view, or call their views 'silly.'

Daviy

I am not going to go searching for the references, but when scientists were making great headlines, as they do prior to a funding bid, the claim was made that the atlantic current was slowing down and we are doomed.

It was later revealed by more sober analysis by others more mature in the field that:
a) they had made a calculation error
b) any notion that it would cease was a nonsense for precisely the reasons I have stated.

I am well aware of the elements in your dissertation above and it doesnt change the basic fact that the currents are not going to stop, no matter what else may or may not happen, whilst the earth rotates and there are winds, of all sorts.

Chaos is not an insurmountable problem in modelling. There are two ways of handling it. One is to model it in intricate detail, which is how we handle turbulence. Turbulence is a highly chaotic phenom, yet if you want to predict how an aircraft wing, turbines or a water pipe lining will perform you need to be able to predict it. We model it pretty well now. The second way is to take the 1000' view and regard it as random and uniform. Thus while we can't predict how a molecule of water will travel in white water, we can still say very accurately how fast the body of water will travel down the stream bed as a whole. And while we don't have a clue as to what each molecule in air is doing, we can safely predict the pressure they collectively produce on a surface as them bump into it.

As for Graham's parallel between financial models and climate models - it seems like a pretty long bow to me. I am not sure the financial melt down was caused by financial models, it seems more like a social phenom to me. What was happening was clearly a mass delusion. How it would end is so bloody obvious in hindsight. The models were just one of the props used to prop up the fantasy long after it should have collapsed. It is not like their limitations weren't well understood either, it was more a case of them those limitations being ignored when it was convenient. And it isn't like this is a once off - the dotcom bubble, Holland's tulips look remarkably similar yet didn't involve models.

As for the climate models - well unlike the financial crisis this really is about the models themselves. The vast bulk of the climate scientists say they have climate models that work. As far a I can tell, there is no way for a lay person to know without becoming a climate scientist himself. About the only thing the two situations have in common is they make me feel dammed uncomfortable.