> I need to sign of this discussion for a week or two; too much going
> on. Perhaps someone else will take it up.
> > Do you have any evidence that the temperature on the venus surface
> > would be lower if it were 5% co2 instead of 95%?
> Obviously, not observational. But the science is much more advanced
> than you give it credit for. The greenhouse effect is understood.
Science in this instance is a lil bit less developed than you give
it credit for (probably somewhere between you and me). In this
instance, there are no controls in place, no replication capabilities,
no ability to vary 1 variable while holding others constant, no real
understanding of the system as a whole, and no idea what feedback
mechanisms might come into play that are not observable at out current
temperature range, no testing on it's predictive abilities. There is
too much trust placed in incomplete "black box" models.
Now, some of those things that are missing from climate science
like control groups, replication, prediction (the modellers have yet
to produce one that can model the past climate) are vital and central
to the scientific method. Tell me something, what's your opinion of
psychology? Do you consider it to be a well developed science?
> A quick googling turns up this:
> http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/ATOC5560_2002/Lec26.pdf
> You may wish to work through it, and play with the parameters to see
> if you can get it to saturate.
>
> As for basing your entire conclusion about the future governance of
> the planet's atmopsphere on a crude hand-drawn non-reviewed graph of
> paleotemperature on the 500 Ma time scale, all the while ignoring
> IPCC, perhaps it might be worth reconsidering what you take seriously
> and what you dismiss.
As for basing my conclusion on the temperature history of the
actual planet under real world conditions that is referenced by both
NOAA and NASA, rather than taking the IPCC as gospel, perhaps you ought
to reevaluate your creduluosness. At best, the IPCC represents the sum
total of the current "science" of climatology. At worst, it represents
a picked political body with an axe to grind. Either way, I'll take a
500 million year history over IPCC compilations of research papers any
day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Even under the best cases of IPCC credibility, their conclusions
are based on models which ignore a very great deal of very important
climactic considerations. Among them, cloud feedbacks, surface level
albedo changes, spectrum responses, solar variations, long term cycles
of all stripes, plant species responses (some plant species grow FAR
better than the current mix under high co2 conditions, expect to see
those plants becoming more prevalent), methane release due to melting
permafrost, methane release to to species extinctions, and the
absolutely stupid ghg value that is used for long term methane (it has
an atmospheric half life of 1-2 years, after which it decomposes into
CO2 and water, the stupidity is that in most climate modeling, they
pretend that the water stays in the atmosphere, as though it were
separate water not subject to rain) and that's just the ones I, a
layman can think of offhand.
Note that in my list of neglected items, ALL of them except
methane releases produce a cooler earth than the models would predict.
That isn't deliberate on my part, it's simply the list of things I know
of that taint the models, and as a list, it shows a very clear bias
toward falsely high predictive values. What am I NOT aware of that
would offset those?
Incidently, I do not ignore the IPCC, I use it for what it's good
for, a useful guide. it represents an excellent collection of
information that can and often does point me in the direction of real
science. However, in and of itself, it isn't the last word, it's the
first word, we deviate from there.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
