Talk:Myth: Climate sensitivity is too low

From RCwiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not added into the index yet, we need to agree on the title (question or statement). --S2 18:25, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Concern: The data is pushing the top edge or exceeding in some cases (arctic ice) exceeding the positive side of the models.

Arctic Ice Retreating More Quickly Than Computer Models Project

It seems scientific knowledge is lagging the real picture. How to address this with prescience?

NASA Nov.17 2008

"Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet)."

How to address this? Maybe just start collecting the links and graphs showing the actual v. models; Such as sea level rise models v. actual, etc.

Other possible Titles: Climate Sensitivity too Low? Are models properly accounting feedbacks? Model Sensitivity too Low? --Jreisman 05:08, 11 December 2008 (EST)


Good links, but I think they probably don't belong on this page. My fault for not spelling it out, but this page is intended to go in the "By Myth" section of the home page - i.e. it's intended to provide links to rebuttals of the "Climate Sensitivity is too low" myth. I think you've read the page title literally (which is my fault, not yours). --S2 15:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)


I find this question confusing. The myth is that it is too small to worry about, not that it isn't low enough! Maybe the correct question should simply be "What is the climate sensitivity?" Admin 17:13, 11 December 2008 (EST)


Been thinking about this issue wrt to all of the myths and intent of the wiki vs currency ie not all of the debunks are updated that often or at all, which is a problem, but at the same time other relevant stories are not written explicitly to address the myth even though very pertinent.
A suggestion (if I may): For each page have the explicit mythbuster articles at the top, but also allow a 2nd lower section of relevant material (credible blogs or news stories) that are more current and add relevant substance.
A page might look something like this:


MYTH
  • Mythbuster 1
  • Mythbuster 2
  • Mythbuster 3
  • Mythbuster 4

See also:
  • article
  • article

Thoughts?
On a related note, in writing I find I am moving over to "fable" rather than "myth" as "myth" just gives the denier children's stories too much gravitas ... they aren't nearly that good.

--Greenfyre 19:25, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Sorry, I did not have enough context. Maybe a hierarchical structure in the wiki?

www .realclimate.org/wiki/ www .realclimate.org/wiki/myths (or fables) although it may be a good idea to knock them down as myths?

I try to address the perceptive values where reasonable. Going to Fable sounds like a good idea but may have a negative blowback from lack of assimilation in understood connotative values, generally speaking.

www.realclimate.org/wiki/myths/discussion so I won't trip over my context :) www.realclimate.org/wiki/skeptics www.realclimate.org/wiki/status www.realclimate.org/wiki/trends

Things like that?

I'm not sure of the structure of the wiki or it's limitations. I do work with open source CMS though. We tend to vote with +1, 0, or -1, so I'm +1 for myth/what-is-climate-sensitivity and +1 for status/climate-sensitivity etc., if that helps?

Is the idea a folder or item structure or a page structure with a list of the myths? I've been playing with both ideas this week and I ended up with a folder/item structure. --Jreisman 10:48, 12 December 2008 (EST)


Good grief, this is getting complicated. :)

"I find this question confusing. The myth is that it is too small to worry about, not that it isn't low enough! Maybe the correct question should simply be "What is the climate sensitivity?" Admin 17:13, 11 December 2008 (EST)"

Fair enough - but I put this page together as part of the "Myths" section on the home page. I was reacting to Admin's earlier comment at User_talk:S2:

"since this is where we are discussing things, here's an idea. I know that Coby et al have set out the myths 'straight' (i.e. by quoting the incorrect idea), but there is a lot of evidence that this just ends up reinforcing peoples misconceptions, even if you conclude the exact opposite. Would it not therefore be a little better to phrase the myths section as real questions? i.e. Are chaotic systems predictable? Is the CO2 rise natural? etc. Admin 20:31, 5 December 2008 (EST)"

I seem to have confused everyone. :)

But in my view "Myth: What is the climate sensitivity?" doesn't work.

Greenfyre suggested that instead of using questions we should use positive declarative statements:

   * The CO2 record is reliable
   * CO2 is rising as fast as projected

That kind of makes sense, but under a heading of "Myths" could be misconstrued (or ridiculed), so I wasn't too keen. It's also difficult in some cases to turn the myth around (e.g. "Sea level in the Arctic is falling" or "CO2 doesn't lead, it lags").

So I've come full circle, I think the original naming structure for Myths was probably not far off, as long as we make it clear that it's a Myth/Fable. (BTW I like Fable, but I think I prefer Myth since it's a term that is already in widespread use and unlikely to be misunderstood).

I think I made a mess of the original post by being too enthusiastic (and being in too much of a rush). I've had a go at restructuring it. Is this a better approach? (Apologies, I forgot to sign. --S2 04:30, 13 December 2008 (EST) )


- I vote for however the common myth is referred to. That way the post is easily identifiable by the most people that believe in the myth. Statements like "* The CO2 record is reliable" may better serve the wiki as a good reference page in a knowledge section imo. --Jreisman 03:51, 13 December 2008 (EST)