Hi Guys, Okay I have a question i was wondering if anyone can enlighten me on this discrepancy. I asked Gavin Schmidt on RC whether he thought the climate was a chaotic system. He said he did not know (seriously). What i fail to understand is how can anyone be confident about the results of a computer model for which the underlying nature of the fundamental science is unknown? Their argument is more or less that because climate changes over longer periods they dont need to treat it like a chaotic system (with all the inherent unpredictability that comes with a chaotic system). But then on the other hand, they claim that a moderate increase in Co2 will cause this "tipping point" to occur causing run-away global warming. Put that all together and we see a monstrous logical contradiction because they claim in equal measure that a) system is not chaotic and sensitive to initial conditions b) Co2 (which is an initial condition in the model) will push climate into new run-away warming configuration within decades. Thats makes no sense at all. They are denying the chaotic nature of climate while using charcteristics of chaotic systems to scare the hellp out of us re the Co2 (initial condition). I'm all ears for anyone who can explain this unambiguous contradiction.