Articles | Volume 18, issue 1
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 18, 129–131, 2011
https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-18-129-2011
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 18, 129–131, 2011
https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-18-129-2011

Comment/reply 18 Feb 2011

Comment/reply | 18 Feb 2011

Reply to Roe and Baker's comment on "Another look at climate sensitivity" by Zaliapin and Ghil (2010)

I. Zaliapin1 and M. Ghil2,3 I. Zaliapin and M. Ghil
  • 1Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Nevada, Reno, USA
  • 2Geosciences Department and Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (CNRS and IPSL), Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France
  • 3Department of Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences and Institute of Geophysics & Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, USA

Abstract. G. H. Roe and M. B. Baker (hereafter R&B) claim that analysis of a global linear approximation to the climate system allows one to conclude that the quest for reliable climate predictions is futile. We insist that this quest is important and requires a proper understanding of the roles of both linear and nonlinear methods in climate dynamics.