Talk:Myth: Climate sensitivity is too low
|Revision as of 00:25, 12 December 2008 (edit)
Greenfyre (Talk | contribs)
← Previous diff
|Revision as of 01:44, 12 December 2008 (edit)
Greenfyre (Talk | contribs)
Next diff →
|Line 41:||Line 41:|
|: Thoughts?||: 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.|
|--[[User:Greenfyre|Greenfyre]] 19:25, 11 December 2008 (EST)||--[[User:Greenfyre|Greenfyre]] 19:25, 11 December 2008 (EST)|
Revision as of 01:44, 12 December 2008
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.
It seems scientific knowledge is lagging the real picture. How to address this with prescience?
"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:
- Mythbuster 1
- Mythbuster 2
- Mythbuster 3
- Mythbuster 4
- See also:
- 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)