Consensus? What was that about a consensus?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Jun 30, 2010.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,680
  2. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,367
    Thanks Received:
    5,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,245
  3. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,680



    You might want to ACTUALLY READ the whole article instead of doing your typical Cliff Notes review of a subject.
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,367
    Thanks Received:
    5,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,245
    Did read the whole article. Seems to be another idiot trying to find something in cutting edge research to hang his denial of the fact of AGW on.

    So, after very logically and methodically making the case for dismissing the conveyor belt model, Dr. Lozier claims we should not discard it because it is a gross oversimplification, but because it “no longer serves the community well.” I would call any theory that ignores the intricate mechanics and crucial structures of the thing is is attempting to describe as worse than a gross oversimplification—I would call it wrong. It seems that Dr. Lozier just cannot bring herself to say the words, “this theory is false.”

    Regardless, oceanography is in the process of moving on to new, hopefully less false theories. Some period of grief and denial is probably to be expected from those who literally grew up with the conveyor belt theory. Now, if climate science would only face up to the falseness of the gross oversimplification they have promoted over the past few decades—anthropogenic global warming.

    I found nothing in the article which would in any way challenge the present consensus on the relationship between the GHGs that we are creating, and the speed of the current warming.
     
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,680



    Once again for the reading impaired, I put the relevant part in bold and colored it if you happen to be color blind. So please show me where it is a single person saying this.....

    "According to a review article in the journal Science, a number of studies conducted over the past few years have challenged this paradigm. Oceanographers have discovered the vital role of ocean eddy currents and the wind in establishing the structure and variability of the ocean’s overturning. In light of these new discoveries, the demise of the conveyor belt model has been become the new majority opinion among the world's oceanographers. According to M. Susan Lozier, of Duke University, “the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well.”
    "
     
  6. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,367
    Thanks Received:
    5,394
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,245
    And that challenges the present consensus on global warming how?
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,963
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,680



    Because most of the IPCC computer climate models are based on that paradigm good buddy!
     

Share This Page