Admiral_Bobski
-
Posts
1,787 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by Admiral_Bobski
-
-
Nobody has yet been willing or able to explain how or why consensus science can be a good thing.
This topic hasn't aroused the kind of interest that I was expecting or hoping for, so I should probably let it die a death...but I'm curious as to why people think that consensus science is good.
Anyone?
CB
-
Okay...the Oxford English dictionary definition is "general agreement" in terms of consensus. Defining "general agreement" is problematic. I reckon the word "consensus" is a tad confusing because of its variety of contextual experiences: -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus
I can admit to being misled about its actual meaning in the scientific sphere. If it means "majority" then of course, it doesn't mean its right. And sometimes in political spheres we experience a phenomenon known as "groupthink": -
http://www.psysr.org...%20overview.htm
And as for eugenics, yes I did take their arguments seriously. However, I firstly reject them because they are not based on simple observations of what occurs as is in the natural and human-constructed world outside the realm of ideology. It is instead an elitist ideology using some contested scientific theory to try and support its advocacy. My main reason for rejecting eugenics is that I find it morally abhorrent. Global warming theory, on the other hand - does not construe an ideology (albeit some right-wing anti-government groups will tell you its a sinister plot) but is instead a series of observations regarding our impact on the natural world. Whether such data goes on and becomes misrepresented, obfuscated, etc by media and politicians is most likely a result of the corporate/hierarchical control over the dissemination of information which special interests may use to protect their own agenda.
This discussion runs the risk of becoming just a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "consensus", but that would be the wrong way to go. The point is the implications of what that word means. Here's an example from the Wiki page to which you linked:
...the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy.
The implication of a scientific consensus is that science is a democracy. Science is not a democracy. The truth is not arrived at by collective agreement or by the assent of a majority. Here's another one:
[Consensus] can also lead to a few dominant individuals making all decisions.
If "the ones making all the decisions" are wrong then that's a bad thing for science. There shouldn't be decision-making in science - it's either right or it isn't, and that's all there is to it.
Moving on, I would question your assertion that AGW theory does not construe an ideology. In terms of the science itself I tend to agree with you. But the problem is with this "consensus" - scientists now, effectively sanctioned by the IPCC, offer suggestions for how to stop or reverse global warming. Their proposals are ideological, in that they are "a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology). This is because the science of AGW has become politicised, and this is precisely the objection that Michael Crichton had against consensus science.
With regards your follow-up post, I think that the media and public aspects of this discussion are a red herring. How the media present the science to the public, and how well the public understand that science, are irrelevant to the concept of consensus science. Consensus science is about the way in which science is conducted. If there is a corruption of the scientific process before the public or the media get involved then there is all ready a problem way before that point.
To TWS: I generally agree with what you say. More to the point, in answer to your question "if we don't need consensus science, what do we need for political decision-making?", what we need is politicians who will address issues head-on without hiding behind scientists. As you said earlier, issues like peak-oil and sustainability are real issues that can be tackled by following the same route that they are attempting to justify with AGW. It's like second-hand smoke - they hide behind dubious scientific studies to claim that second-hand smoke is bad for your health when what they should have been doing all along is saying "most people don't like smokers lighting up in restaurants and other public places, so we're going to ban it."
Basically, politicians need to be honest. And they're really not very good at that, are they?
CB
-
Erm..this is misleading.
Consensus means that ALL people in a group agree on something. At least thats how I've come to understand the definition.
We don't have that situation in all areas of scientific inquiry. Having said that; if enough credible and knowledgable people put forward a solid scientific argument then it should be taken seriously and things like risk mitigation, etc should be implemented.
The primary definition of "consensus" is "majority opinion", followed by "general agreement" (which does not preclude the existence of those who disagree, since the agreement is only general). Not everyone in a group need agree - the outcome of a discussion within a group can lead to a consensus decision or a unanimous one. Unanimous means "of one mind" or "complete agreement" (as opposed to "general agreement").
You're right - we don't have that situation in all areas of scientific enquiry, and that's precisely my point: does it have any place in scientific enquiry? If you read back over the first post in this thread you will see that it was sparked by the announcement of a consensus on whether an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. The "climate change consensus" has set a precedent in modern scientific enquiry and it would seem that the palaeontological community has followed the precedent. But why? What place does consensus have in science? That's the point.
As for the "if enough credible and knowledgeable people put forward a solid scientific argument" comment, I would point out that a lot of credible, knowledgeable and highly respected people put forward arguments for eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Those arguments were "solid scientific" ones, as far as the understanding of the day went. Just because a lot of smart people push a theory (or policy) doesn't automatically make it good or right. And, as Crichton said, Science is (or can be) done by individuals: if a single person is right and everybody else is wrong, it really doesn't matter what everybody else thinks.
To sunny starry skies:
Again, you are correct - the natural consensus has been pushed into the political arena. The problem is that it is not just politicians who are acting like...well, like politicians. The IPCC was set up, fundamentally, by governments. The people who worked on the project were scientists. Those scientists were pushed and pulled this way and that to include certain things, exclude certain other things and, basically, deliberately proceed in a manner which does not entirely fall within the jurisdiction of "the scientific method".
Since the IPCC's first report the mud has really started to be slung. The spite and venom being spewed at scientists from - and at - both sides of the debate is, frankly, shocking. I know that scientific circles aren't a purely intellectual utopia, as some people seem to think, but the sheer degree of vitriol is astonishing. And all this since the IPCC's pronouncement of scientific consensus.
CB
As a quick addendum, I notice that we now have 3 "good" votes and 3 "bad" votes. Explanations have been put forward for why people think consensus science is bad, but as yet nobody has explained why they think it is good. Any takers?
-
Yes, but if there is a consensus should science not tell that truth about that so that people who disagree feel more happy to say so and not be alienated? Seems an odd thing to do to me.
On the contrary, I think the vast majority of people would feel less comfortable about disagreeing with an openly-stated widespread belief or acceptance. If there is no "consensus group" then what are you going to feel alienated by (or from)?
If there is no official declaration of the consensus then there are merely "those who agree" and "those who disagree". If there is a declaration then the groups are "part of the consensus" and "not part of the consensus". It becomes almost like a popularity contest, and the popular ones hold more sway than the unpopular ones (and if you disagree with that then, well, just look at the AGW debate since the IPCC's first report).
Similarly, I suspect that the dinosaur extinction debate will now become more aggressive or else it will die out altogther (go extinct, you might say). The official declaration of consensus will stifle the debate. It won't be as widely reported as the AGW debate, of course, and perhaps only those involved will know what's going on in there, but I honestly think that's the way it will go.
I'll keep my eye on it and see what happens.
CB
-
What should scientist say when they can't prove something but there is a lot of evidence that points to that something being 'right', 'likely', 'probable', 'the most likely explanation'?
I don't quite see why we get hung up with words like consensus, (or proof, or fact which do the rounds here and elsewhere). To say there is a consensus is to describe a reality, most climate scientists accept Co2 is a ghg, that we're adding it, but there are questions about feedbacks etc etc etc.
Re the poll, there isn't an option I can vote for becasue I'm not sure there are 'official' consensuses (spp?) about anything (as in, 'this is 'offical' you do some kind of 'wrong' to oppose it' and I'm not sure there is a need (as the poll explantion implies?) for how we voted to be listed (well, that's how it reads 'other member will be able to see which option you chose'?).
The thing is that I'm not hung up on the word consensus at all. As I said in reply to sss, I believe there is a consensus among scientists that AGW is happening (a consensus, in this case, meaning "a majority acceptance").
The problem comes when forming a group with the specific intention of declaring what the consensus is. The "natural" consensus that sss mentioned is an unspoken consensus, by which I mean that there is no official pronouncement that the general belief is that AGW is occurring. In science it genuinely doesn't matter what the consensus is - all that matters is what is right.
By officially stating the consensus you (not you, Dev, but the officials!) are saying that "the scientific community believes this to be the case", which alienates anyone within the community who disagrees.
I don't see why we need some kind of "secret ballot" on this subject - as I said earlier, there is no right or wrong answer. (Also I didn't realise that there was any other way of doing a poll - it's my first one...and I still don't know who answered "Good" or how I might go about finding out, so it's obviously not listed that clearly.)
But I don't know what you mean about not being sure that there are official consensus (plural of "consensus" is, apparently, just "consensus" - it must be a Latin thing). A consensus is something that just happens - it is the majority belief, effectively. A consensus happens whether someone announces its existence or not. An official consensus, in the terms I described, is one which has been specifically determined and announced. Is there really any need, in science, to make such statements?
CB
-
I've just noticed that somebody has voted for "Good". I'm not going to start jumping up and down and shouting that consensus science can't be good - there is no right or wrong answer in this poll; I just wanted to get a broad spread of opinion. It would be helpful, though, if anyone who votes "good" could explain why they think that - just as sss explained why he thought that it made no difference. I was kinda hoping the poll would invoke some discussion.
Thanks.
CB
(Thanks, VP, for your answer - but are you sure you're not Copernicus? You're not secretly Prussian, are you?
) -
Thanks, sss - a well-reasoned and well-explained position, as I would expect of you!
I was, I confess, rather obvious in my connecting this to AGW (but, hey, if I wasn't connecting it to AGW then I should've put this in the "Space, Science and Nature" forum!).
More to the point, I agree with what you say, for the most part. I agree that there is a natural consensus on AGW, by which I mean that a majority of scientists believe that AGW is occurring to some degree or other. The problem I have is that, because there is a natural consensus there is no need for an official one.
An official consensus serves only to stifle the minority who do not agree with it. A natural consensus is nothing more than a situation in which most scientists agree with a particular theory.
There is a natural consensus on Einstein's theories of relativity, for example - the vast majority of scientists accept that it is true (insofaras anything is true in science). There is simply no need for there to be an official consensus.
So, what is the point of an official consensus?
In the case of AGW it is clearly to establish a baseline by which politicians can implement policies, which means that the consensus is a purely political statement, not a scientific one. I believe it was this to which Michael Crichton objected - science and politics are not cosy bedfellows. By establishing a consensus on AGW, the minority group who disagreed with the theory were effectively excluded from the debate: not necessarily by the actual scientists but perhaps by political pressures.
But what does an official consensus do for the dinosaurs? I can't see how it can serve any purpose whatsoever. Perhaps there is a political aim (perhaps, for example, it "proves" that mass extinctions can come about by climatological means...perhaps they should tell us something we don't know!). But the only thing I can see an official consensus doing is stifling debate - preventing some young upstart from coming along and overturning a hundred years of scientific belief.
Maybe that's what all this "consensus" stuff is about - preventing change. The human race seems to have reached a point where it clings desperately onto things and refuses to let go. We've seen so much change over the past 100 years - over the past 20 years! - that maybe we have become afraid of any more change.
It's a puzzler...
CB
EDIT - thanks also to laserguy for being the first to leap into the fray! Sorry to overlook you, but I couldn't think of anything in your post to comment on...except, perhaps, to say that I sincerely doubt that I'm the Copernicus of our age. VP, maybe, but not me!
-
A panel was recently made up to assess the evidence for the assertion that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. After their assessment the panel announced that it was an asteroid that was to blame and not volcanic activity in the Deccan traps (or, presumably, any other event).
My initial reaction was this:
"Why do we even need a consensus on this subject?"
Is it that the IPCC's announcement of a "climate change consensus" has shifted the scientific community towards declaring official consensus on scientific matters?
The big question is this: does an official consensus stifle scientific debate? If somebody has found evidence that goes against the consensus, is that evidence pooh-poohed before it has had a fair hearing because "it must be wrong" since it goes against the consensus?
Would most scientists not bother investigating a phenomenon because a consensus has been reached, or allow their belief in the consensus to cloud their judgement when studying that phenomenon?
Is there any place in science for official consensus?
I know an awful lot of people don't like the late Michael Crichton, but here's what he had to say about "Consensus Science":
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period... I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way...
What do you think?
CB
(Sources: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/03/08/rock-solid-science-a-6-mile-wide-space-rock-did-wipe-out-the-dinosaurs-experts-say/ ; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/5970/1214 ; http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html )
-
Calgovic et al (2010): http://www.eawag.ch/...0_calogovic.pdf
"Here we report on an alternative and stringent test of the CRC‐hypothesis [cosmic-ray-cloud hypothesis] by searching for a possible influence of sudden GCR decreases (so‐called Forbush decreases) on clouds. We find no response of global cloud cover to Forbush decreases at any altitude and latitude."
Worth pointing out is this quote from the Calgovic paper:
"Since the only difference between the CRC hypothesis and our approach is the duration of the GCR change, a necessary condition for our test to be applicable is that the time scales of the involved processes are short enough to follow the changes in cosmic rays. In other words, the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentration must drop within 1–2 days and recover during about a week (Figure 1)."
So there is a big If regarding this study. I confess that I do not know enough about the GCR theory to be able to say anything unequivocally, but perhaps the process requires that there is a high and steady bombardment of the atmosphere by GCRs to cause the proposed effect, and that Forbush decreases do not occur over long enough time scales to cause a change in cloud numbers.
Just a thought.
CB
-
Trouble is though, it doesn't actually say a great deal about AGW at all. The predominant factor influencing ice extent is the Arctic Oscillation; both the drastic loss of ice a couple of summers ago and the warmth up there this winter is a direct result of the AO.
Too much is read into the Arctic when it comes to AGW in my opinion, amount of ice isn't, never has been and never will be a reliable measure of AGW. It's probably one of the biggest red herrings in this entire debate.
Absolutely what I was thinking. A melting Arctic may be indicative of a warming world, but it says absolutely nothing as to the causes of that warming. I have seen this kind of conclusion drawn even in scientific papers; that somehow proof of a warming world is proof of man-made warming.
Drives me potty!
CB
-
The fact that heat gets harder to gain with increases in temp and harder to lose with decreases in temp holds true at any scale, though having not done the maths I can't say for certain how much of an effect it would have.
As for proxies, Be10 is one of the most commonly used proxies for solar activity. As can be seen from the graph below, while Be10 concentration gives a broad idea of the waxing and waning of solar cycles it is by no means a bang-on accurate proxy, so it can only really be used as a general indicator.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png)
:lol:
-
My head is starting to clear and I'm starting to be able to string coherent thoughts together now, so let me take another stab at this (hopefully without the short fuse I had the other day!).
I had an issue with the assumption that a maunder-type minimum would cause only about a 0.3C drop in temperatures, and I think I've now managed to figure out where my objection lay.
Let's say, for now, that Iceberg's assertion that the Maunder minimum (1645-1715) caused a 0.3C drop in temperatures is correct. If so then it caused a 0.3C drop from the pre-minimum temperatures. We have established, over on the LI thread, that heat gets harder to gain the higher the temperature is, and, conversely, that heat gets harder to lose the lower the temperature is.
If the current temperature is, say, 1.0C higher than the pre-minimum temperature (for the sake of argument) then a Maunder-type minimum would cause a greater heat-loss now than it did in the 17th century.
What I am trying to say is that it is not as cut-and-dried to say that a maunder-type minimum causes a 0.3C drop in temperature because it depends upon the heat content of the system in the first place.
Does that make some sort of sense?
CB
-
Maybe it can be turned on it's head, if Gavin is wrong with his 0.3C, what is the effect of a maunder type minimum to global temperatures ?.
Once we have this maybe we can check back to see if this alternative view is supported by previous maunders ?
You have a bit of a problem with that idea - trying to figure out what effect a maunder-type minimum might have on global temps is one thing, but how can we check that with "previous maunders"? The only Maunder-type minimum we have an accurate record of is the Maunder Minimum itself. Proxy reconstructions of sunspots going back beyond the mid-1600s lack the resolution to be able to identify similarly quiet periods with any accuracy. We can try to correlate our expectations with past temperatures on this basis, but we can't be anything like certain that we are making the appropriate comparisons.
CB
-
Thanks Iceberg
CB
-
So Iceberg - you don't find your comment about "GLOBAL temperatures" even the teensiest bit patronising, like maybe I had somehow completely missed the debates about whether the LIA was a GLOBAL or LOCAL phenomenon?
I have done a hell of a lot of research into solar activity in the past and stockpiled masses of data and graphs (many, if not all, of which I have posted up on these boards at various times) and now I find that all of these data are missing from my computer, presumably from when my PC crashed last year. At present I can't be bothered with trawling back through the web to find all of this information, refamiliarise myself with it and respond with graphs and data and analsis (which I usually do, I would like to emphasise).
This is not me fobbing you off with some excuse, although I can see how it might come across that way, but it is symptomatic of the lack of enthusiasm I have for this subject at the moment. In fact I only bothered to respond to your post in the first place because I got somewhat riled by your caps-locked "GLOBAL" comment.
Over the past several years I have had some serious problems (mainly financial) in my private life, and I think I clung to this debate for the escapism of it all - focusing my energies on this discussion took my mind off my other problems. So far this year I have had to confront these problems and now - blessedly - they are sorted and an enormous weight has been lifted from my shoulders that has been on me for almost as long as I can remember. Strangely - or not, as the case may be - now that those problems are gone I find that I don't have any real compulsion to continue these discussions. I don't like being treated like an idiot, and I will defend myself if I feel that I have been treated so, but otherwise I don't see any point in continuing with this.
I'm not "throwing my toys out of my pram" or anything, I just...don't care any more, basically. Not in a "stuff it all, I can't be naffed" kind of way, but more in an "I've got better things to be getting on with" kind of way.
I don't know what else to say, really - it all feels like a bit of a damp squib...
-
Clearly something has got my back up. Perhaps it's the way you condescendingly spout figures out, but apparently have no interest in investigating their derivation.
Maybe I've just had enough.
-
-
Why is it so difficult to believe CB ?.
If you look back most GLOBAL temparature proxies have the LIA as having a drop in temperature of 0.4 to 0.5C.
The Maunder minimum being responsible for alot of this, but also other factors such as increased Volcanic activity etc acting as a cooling agent.
Also the cooling of the Maunder minimum.4 to .5C probably took longer than 100 years.
Put that into context with the .4 or so of warming we have already had(beyond leaving the LIA) and what they are saying seem to make perfect sense.
And attributing 0.3C to a maunder minimum make sense, but I am happy to hear/see something that would not point to this.
If I may ask, why do you find it so easy to believe? Is it because it fits in so snugly with your worldview? Well, of course it does: that's the problem. It's yet another study which "shows" something to be the case which, in fact, only shows what the outcome of a given scenario is so long as all the assumptions made are correct!
The GLOBAL temperature proxies (thank you for shouting or I may not have heard you) show anything up to a 1C drop in GLOBAL temperature..there's a certain amount of uncertainty, surprise, surprise.
And what of the cooling taking longer than 100 years? Are you implying that cooling takes time - almost like there's some kind of...ooh, what's the word...lag?
Your post (and sss's quick pat-on-the-back follow-up) is a prime example of why I don't post on here any more - you patronise others and force them into repeating themselves time and again.
What's the bloody point?
CB
I agree with the conclusion that it's extremely unlikely that the sun would be able to come close to offsetting 2-4C worth of AGW unless something happened to the sun that was unprecedented in the last millennium and probably for much longer.
Something worth noting, though, is that the calculations which determine AGW's 2-4C of warming are determined along with the assumption that the Sun has the effect of only 0.3C during the Maunder minimum. If the Sun's effect during that period was higher then, by extension, GHGs have a lesser effect, which means that a Maunder-type minimum wouldn't have to offset 2-4C of AGW but rather something less than that.
CB
-
I am liking the Fluence ZE a great deal - where do I sign up?
-
It is important to note that, according to the article, the scientists "modelled what would happen to temperatures on Earth if a grand minimum started now and lasted until 2100." So what we're looking at here is a computer simulation of a Maunder-type minimum, based upon the assumption that we are modelling the Sun correctly.
It seems unlikely to me, as TWS has intimated, that a Maunder-type minimum would cause as little as 0.3C drop in global temperatures, and so this - to me - suggests not that "the Sun won't save us" but rather that we are not currently modelling the Sun's effect on climate correctly.
CB
-
Hi C-Bob!
OK , I was being childish in my remarks about this years global temps.I merely meant to highlight how daft it is to 'create' a trend by picking an anomalous high spot, in a series of data, as a 'start point' for a trend and that it is as easy to make an upward or downward trend by doing so. Should 2010 come in as a record year it would be wrong to draw a line between 98 and 2010 and call it representative of global temps over the period.
I absolutely agree - whenever I see an argument based around a 10-year trend or an 8-year trend or a 13.5-year trend it drives me crazy! Annoyingly, it doesn't just happen on internet forums, it also happens a lot in supposedly scientific articles and papers. The bottom line is this: even if a 10-year trend was statistically significant, climate is measured in 30-year increments, therefore any analysis of less than 30 years is going to be rejected. So why bother?
As far as AGW is concerned I still feel it more than happenstance that humanity should have concerns about its impacts upon the global atmosphere, via pollution, (over it's worst period of polluting the atmosphere) at a time when we are witnessing global changes that are unprecedented since the end of the past ice age and seem to confirm our impacts on the planets climate.I think this is one of the main areas where we differ: I can see a variety of reasons why there should be this coincidence of increasing temperatures and at the same time that we're looking for it. I have posited before the possibility that it was the cold that sparked the industrial revolution, and that maybe we just started to industrialise as the cold was naturally coming to an end. We started to get really concerned about global warming after we realised that the globe was warming, and concluded that it was our fault (like in the analogy I have used before - going into the kitchen to find the oven on and concluding that therefore I must have turned it on). It's not just that coincidences happen - it's that coincidences happen an awful lot of the time.
I agree we could do with a much longer period in which to study the phenomena but ,should the theories prove correct, we do not have the luxury of that time to 'confirm' our suspicions without pushing things even further into crisis over that time.If we still have a chance of avoiding climate change by acting now , as we are told we must to halt climate changes human drivers, then surely it is in our best interests to do so?
Since it would appear that any attempts to mitigate global warming, even if we caused it, are likely to end in failure, it seems rather silly to pump huge amounts of money into mitigation - much like the Millennium Dome. The human race has survived harsh weather before, and at a time when we were less technologically capable of taking care of ourselves. Since adaptation is what the human race is good at, my thinking is that we should play to our strengths.
Are you really of the opinion that a raft of un-measured natural drivers have collaborated to bring about changes we see and that mimic those the impacts we predict would occur via our polluting ways?Yes, I think it's a distinct possibility.
I'd ask again what proof you ,personally, would require before you would entertain that humanities disregard for the planet has brought about the changes we are measuring as it would appear that I am quite a lightweight and need only what I have seen thus far to convince me of our culpability.That's a really tough question. I suspect I'll know it when I see it. I'd like to emphasise the fact that I have entertained the notion that we are causing AGW, but so far I am unconvinced. A good first step would be to conclusively show that natural factors can't have caused the warming by themselves.
CB
-
Whaaaaa????
If we look at the title of the thread it screams to suggest that agreement on 'warming' is reached and that now the question is 'why has it halted'.
In 75 thousand years we may see a differing trend emerge and I'll be more likely to pay heed to your criticisms but whilst I see bare earth revealed that has been buried in ice for over 11 thousand years, whilst on the downward slope of a Milankovich, I have to say "Whaaaaa?"
I'm not being drawn by silliness guy's. We are looking at a very short period of time via our concerns of what we ,humanity, have done over that period. You cannot say "foul" because we are within a dynamic system, you cannot say "Foul" because we have to think on our feet.
Do you really think we have the luxury of the time your approach demands????
The "downward slope of a Milankovich" argument is a red herring - you're talking about a slope that takes tens of thousands of years to go from peak to trough, so how big a cooling factor is it over a time scale of ten years, or thirty, or even a hundred?
This is not silliness, GW - the argument you gave is silly, a fact which I am pointing out. There are better arguments you could use: falling back into the habit of using silly arguments does not help your case.
CB
-
I haven't read it all yet (!) but here is a link to Frank Very's 1900 work "Atmospheric Radiation: A Research" in PDF format (be warned, it's a scanned-in book and the download is 24MB!!).
http://www.archive.org/details/atmosphericradia00veryrich
-
Realclimate give their view on the debate here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
I've got to go and check on something before I say more...
)
Leaky Integrator Discussion
in Climate Change
Posted · Edited by Captain_Bobski
Important to note (or rather to emphasise) that this previous use of the leaky bucket, Cox et al 1999, does not use the leaky bucket the same way that we are using it. We, of course, are using the leaky bucket to model the total heat capacity of the entire planet, whereas Cox taks about its use within the Earth climate system.
(Just thought I'd underline that before anyone jumps up and says that the LI has already been discredited!
)
I had assumed that an overflowing would occur at some point, since the peak temperature of the Earth appears to be around 22C (historically, the Earth has spent far longer at 22C than it has at its lowest point of about 12C - we're now at somewhere around 14C, I believe). It hadn't occurred to me that this would have any relevance to the LI in the temperature region that we're looking at, since it's well below the 22C "cutoff" point. But would a limiting factor at the top end cause other limitations, or different behaviour, further down the scale?
CB
That Carson 1982 thing is, indeed, a book - or rather it is a section within a book entitled "Land surface processes in atmospheric general circulation models" by PS Eagleson. The link below links to places (in the US) where you can buy it. Pre-owned off Amazon.com for around $80 - you can get a preowned copy from Amazon UK for about £80. Yikes! It's a better deal off Amazon US, but I don't know if it's worth chasing up.
http://openlibrary.o...culation_models
EDIT - Not sure if this page might be of some help in the LI:
http://www.unu.edu/u...5e/80635E0j.htm
It references Carson 1982, and it has a table of average monthly values for albedo at various latitudes (which is the point where Carson comes in).