Hi, Brazil. I hope you appreciate that I’ve not yet placed you on Ignore: you seem more sincere and intelligent than the obvious trolls in this thread. However you miss the point.
I’m not trying to understand AGW. I’m trying to understand the ice/thaw cycles of the Pleistocene. I understand that astronomical effects may serve as triggers, but the temperature changes significantly exceed the radiative effects. Therefore positive feedback must be in play. This isn’t because it’s “exciting” :smack: . Nor is there “extremely little evidence” – that the forcing must be accomplished by positive feedback is obvious to anyone with intuition about dynamical systems.
The one point where you are correct is that negative feedback mechanisms are also at work. The system is complex (something your trite “Negative feedback should be the default assumption” seems to ignore).
The way that temperatures and levels of greenhouse gases track each other so exactly implies to me that there is strong positive feedback at work. HTH.
Bullshit. Once more some idiot fuckhead comes out of the woodwork to display his lack of knowledge. It’s fascinating how no matter how much data, no matter how many links, and no matter how clearly the writing is, the fuckheads ignore it all, and go for the cesspool. Each to his own I imagine.
Stop right there.
Yes, a great deal of evidence. In fact, pretty much every goddamn thing I say is backed up with a link to a scientific explanation for why I typed the goddamn fact out in the first place. Well, except for the obvious asides, pointing out what shitty logic and how much of a fuckhead somebody is, but that is self evident from their body of work.
The problem the loudmouth shithead faces, is that in order to counter factual evidence based scientific thought, you actually have to know something about the subject. And you have to respond in a scientific and rational manner. But fuckheads don’t actually know much, and act like religious zealots of political fuckheads, in either case, completely ineffective at arguing.
Thank you, johnpost, that article clearly stated what may be happening. To me, that gives the whole article scientific credibility. It is remotely possible this is just a natural and normal storm and it’s existence has nothing to do with global warming.
Yes, indeed, the positive feedback mechanism for water vapor is well understood. Just the existence of water vapor in the atmosphere causes more water vapor to enter into it. This will continue to ramp up until others forces come into play to damp the feedback down. For example, when your electric guitar amplifier catches fire, the feedback stops. Where AGW enters in is that human contributions are “amplifying” an already existing feedback loop. What’s not clear to me is how we’re changing these “other forces” in such a way that the eventual equilibrium state is at a higher temperature. We may reach some pre-determined maximum temperature sooner, and stay there longer … but that’s a far cry from boiling off the entire atmosphere and such.
Is there something specific in septimus’ post that is in error? Looks all good to me. Water’s feedback mechanism is the first thing students of Meteorology are taught. Just look at the snow out there …
This whole thread has been supposedly been about models. Well, I have a model too. My model says “Hey, it’s kind of cold in the Midwest. I bet that wanker in the BBQ Pit is going to make a post about it.” And lo and behold, there’s a post, presented as if it were data making your point.
Feel free to pretend you were making that post as a joke. My model says that you’ve lost all credibility in a climate debate. Well, you would have lost all your credibility if you’d had any to start with – remember, this thread started with you bitching about an unusually cold day in Atlanta.
I guess I should explain. While the hypothetical WV feedback is indeed a part of current Meteorology courses, it’s because they cover climate change now, which is of course global warming. So they discuss it in textbooks and courses.
But before the global warming madness it wasn’t even mentioned in Meteorology texts. Much less used as a mechanism for runaway heating or increased warming due to feedback. If you think about it for even a little, you might figure out why.
And you are doing an excellent job of not understanding it. Which is pretty easy to do when not a single proponent of AGW can provide a definition of AGW.
You know, the theory of anthropogenic climate change, or AGW or just global warming to most people.
It’s a great way to avoid reality, except that in reality world, the real one we live in, the arctic was unusually cold this year, in fact, it was record cold, having the shortest period of time above freezing since records began.
Sea ice was slow in melting in some areas, along with the latest river ice break ups ever recorded in the arctic. The fall freeze started early and was rapid.
There wasn’t a warm arctic this year. It isn’t warm right now either. That’s why it’s so fucking cold actually.
But sure, blame alcohol. It beats dealing with reality.
The other really big fucking problem with the latest “goddamn it’s cold so it must be global warming” hypothesis, is that it contradicts the meteorological records and our historic understanding about cold fronts, cold winters and the relationship with the arctic.
Extreme winters in the past were not correlated with melting sea ice and a warming arctic. In fact, cold winters are directly related to early and extreme cold in the arctic. Not a warm situation.
Also, the solar experts have been talking about this, predicting this for a decade or more. Especially with the extremely quiet sun right now.
But in any case, the extreme cold winters are directly the opposite of what AGW predicts. In fact, warming winters are a key part of the AGW theory.
I’m not saying that, look at my posts … not once have I said this polar vortex is caused by AGW … Jesus Christ, I’ve NEVER imposed human characteristics on global warming. I’m TRYING to agree with you, but you’re making it hard.
Please explain to me why UCLA offers two separate courses, one for Climatology and one for Dynamics … both of which require completion of Basic Meteorology.