“to encourage the best quality science and engineering assessment of the impact of human activity on the climate, help determine and assess the impact of any changes to our economies, society & environment and to assist governments to develop the most appropriate policy recommendations”.
After posting this comment as the suggested aims of sceptic, I got a detailed reply from Derek Alker which highlighted some deficiencies but also suggested it might make an interesting conversation. So, I’m posting this as an article in its own right.
This in particular was a very good point:
“Err, humans are having a discernible effect?
“the best quality science and engineering assessment of the impact of human activity on the climate”
Is there a bias in the statement? An assumed guilt?”
I think Derek is very right and yes! There should not be any implied guilt in our aims. Indeed as scientists or engineers using science, we should not attempt to attribute blame. But we do know that CO2 has been rising and we generally accept that AT LEAST IN PART, there is some human causation.
When writing the phrase:
“help determine and assess the impact of any changes”
I was originally thinking that the aim should be a balance between science and the economy, so the aim was “impact on the economy” of any policy. In other words, the questions of science should not be divorced from the questions of the economic input. Yes, if nothing else were effected, I doubt anyone would disagree with reducing fossil fuel use, but it just isn’t that simple.
It clearly is a difficult issue. I was also struck by this comment:
“First natural variations and what the system actually is need to be fathomed.”
Again, I had missed a key objective – of course natural variation is important, probability more important that CO2. So, we must not only look to understand CO2, but also natural variation.
Next Derek introduced feedbacks.
We are a long way off at present….. For instance water / water vapour is plainly THE and dominant negative feedback within earth’s climate system. As the current paradigm is totally based upon water vapour being a positive feedback, there has to be a root and branch reform before we can even begin to try to unravel natural variations of earth’s climate system. That is before we even begin to try to see IF we have or are having an affect….
This raises a question of how detailed our aims are. Understanding feedbacks is quite a key point and distinct from CO2 warming so is this a fundamental aim?
The rest of the post was even more detailed, but it represents what I termed “wanting our view heard and asking the climate scientists to listen”. The specifics are not so important as to whether we want our views heard or whether we want our views to be part of a bigger debate and for the best ideas to come out of the whole “melting pot”.
BTW – I posted this on the GWS thread that I am still developing yesterday, it may help to illustrate how far we are from reality, and therefore any useful work at all.
This is the logical failure plainly described, Archer states if Ta is not 2Ta then there is no greenhouse effect.
Ta has already been described by him as
sunlight in (240W/m2) = Tg (240W/m2) = Ta (240W/m2).
But for there to be a greenhouse effect there must be 2Ta, and Tg must equal 2Ta (480W/m2).
To do this atmospheric back radiation is counted BEFORE the atmosphere is warmed by Tg. This is how the type 3 model creates 240W/m2 of energy.
Greenhouse effect “theory” model type 3) Four arrows. Arrow 2 = 480W/m2
David Archer has shown above why the diagram should be read as arrow 1, arrow 4, arrow 2, and arrow 3. Plainly it is false logic.
In this model the atmosphere is depicted as having been warmed to 480W/m2, ie, 30C, by earth’s surface which is according to the “theory” on average 30C.
In fact, this model type is a completely different type of model, it depicts energy flows or fluxes, not heat flows. This sounds a trivial difference, but it is not.
An energy flow is not necessarily a certain temperature, nor does it necessarily indicate a certain temperature.
Energy is the ability to do work, whereas heat is only one of the ways by which energy can be moved around.
This last section is a particular view which Derek wants to be listened to. But is this a general aims of sceptics? Do we even have “general aims”?
I’m not sure, which is why I’ve asked this question. Please do comment.