Perhaps he has superior intuition about dynamical systems.
I’ve worked professionally (and hold patents) in the fields of systems analysis, signal analysis, and pattern recognition. I don’t claim to be expert in dynamical systems, but feedback mechanisms are central to several of my inventions.
You OTOH are acting like a pretentious dolt. If I thought you were sincere in fighting your own ignorance, I’d try to help, but first you’d have to be civil.
Fair Warning: If you insult me again, I’ll set you to Ignore and see only posts by you that others found amusing enough to quote.
I think you have no fucking clue what climatologists mean when they talk about radiative forcing. If you did, you might have the barest idea why the amount of H[sub]2[/sub]O can’t be a forcing.
I see y’all are good at insulting, and pointing out where I’m wrong … but I don’t see where anyone can correct me.
What well-established scientific concepts? You throw that out there like you know something, but you don’t actually state what these principles are. It’s a risk, I know, and you know you’d be wrong. Pride of science is dangerous.
Yes I did, maybe you should try.
The Celsius scale is fine for everyday human activities, but it has negative values. This is mischief for thermodynamics because it gives negative values for energy content. Energy must always be positive in the classical universe. So we use the Kelvin scale which uses zero at absolute zero. From Wikipedia: “Thermodynamic scale [Kelvin] differs from empirical scales in that it is absolute. It is based on the fundamental laws of thermodynamics or statistical mechanics instead of some arbitrary chosen working material.”
In the context of Climatology and Global Warming, Kelvin and Celsius are interchangeable. However, strictly speaking, one should use Kelvin since that scale is more technically correct.
Go for it, tell us, in your own words, what exact is water’s positive feedback mechanism? Please don’t spare any details.
You can infer Goldilocks from red roses if you want … but if you want to deduce man’s contribution to global warming, you’ll have to know why it occurs naturally.
Look at Table 3, this gives water’s contribution to output flux at 60% of the total, carbon dioxide as 26%. With constant input flux, these percentages reflect forcing. This backs my point that carbon dioxide is a secondary contributor. Just a reminder, 40% by mass of the products of complete combustion is indeed water vapor.
I’ve asked this question above, please feel free to answer it and expunge our ignorance … in your own words, what exact is water’s positive feedback mechanism? Let me get this straight, you call someone a “pretentious dolt” and then threaten to set to ignore if we insult you … hahaha … that must be a joke right?
Water is inert to infra-red radiation … okay … forcing = input flux + output flux … say hello to Mary Poppins in your universe.
I’ve tried to give answers to the questions presented to me, if I’ve missed any important ones, please forgive me and restate. Remember, you’re part of a dog pack all yapping and baying. Sometimes it’s hard to hear you over the racket. If you say I’m wrong, but don’t say what’s right, then I’m going to believe you don’t know either.
In your own words, what exactly is water’s positive feedback mechanism … if you don’t know, just say so … I’d be happy to explain it.
Oh no, here we go again. When somebody who believes in catastrophic warming makes a claim, and you ask them to be specific, and explain what they mean, the conversation is pretty much over.
For example, I used a hurricane to make a point about water vapor. Because a hurricane involves a huge amount of water vapor, from the warm ocean surface, from both wind and low pressure. This massive heat engine moves heat from the warm sea surface to both cooler ocean regions, as well as land. Long distances, huge distances, massive amounts of water, and after it is over, do you think the ocean surface, the land, and the atmosphere is warmer?
None of the baying pack answered, we even got a pedantic response, but never an honest answer.
Do you actually think that the end result is more warming of the planet?
It’s an easy question to answer. And it is about water vapor and “how it’s always a feedback”. never a cause of anything climate related.
Actually, nevermind. OTIO.
Is this a statement by you, or are you trying to put words in my mouth I didn’t say? I really can’t tell which brand of stupid you’re going for, the scientifically blind or the rhetorically dumb.
Ha, ha ha! That’s *a *definition of forcing, I’ll give you that. The wrong one, in this context, but OK…so you, too, have no fucking clue why H[sub]2[/sub]O can’t be a forcing. And it can’t be one definitionally.
Oh, and cupcake, here’s a liitle free clue-by-4 : it wasn’t your use of the Kelvin scale that Ludovic was making fun of. It was the evidence in those two words “degree Kelvin” that you are a complete physics naïf.
What jobs have you held and for which companies?
Where and when did you get your degree; what degree is it and in what field?
What are the patent numbers for your patents?
If you want to argue from authority, then at a minimum you need to back up your authority.
Well one of us is ignorant, that’s for sure. Anyway, a couple pages ago I asked you the following question:
Completely civil and reasonable – and you ignored the question.
We also had this exchange:
I was completely civil and reasonable – and you ignored my request.
We also had this exchange:
A completely civil and reasonable question – which you ignored.
A couple posts later I said this:
If I were really ignorant of some important facts or arguments, and you really wanted to address it, then you would have answered my civil, reasonable questions.
But instead you ignored them. I assume it’s because you do not have good answers but I will give you another chance. Please answer my simple, reasonable questions.
Otherwise, I will continue to heap well-deserved ridicule on you.
If you see it as insulting when someone legitimately ridicules an unsupported claim (which claim is in fact ridiculous), then so be it.
I read it, sweetie. It does not support your assertion that
Man this topic is crowded with all kinds of different subjects. If only there was a science based forum here where such things could be discussed. That would be fucking awesome.
Well, why don’t you get the mods to step in then…Oh!
Why don’t you answer the questions about SCIENCE bitch?
Why?
I don’t see how one can divine “strong positive feedback” just from observing that quantities tend to track each other closely. Certainly one can infer that the two quantities are related. One can reasonably hypothesize that changes in one cause changes in the other (although it’s also possible that some third factor is affecting both independently).
But how do you get strong positive feedback? I’m not seeing it, but I am eager to consider septimus’s argument.
[/QUOTE]
-
I do not intend to reveal my true name on this board. My claims are true, but you are welcome to your own opinions.
-
The known astronomical effects on input radiation are inadequate to explain Pleistocene variations; they serve as stimuli to begin change which is furthered by positive feedbacks. CO2 does track temperature closely during the Pleistocene, and it is a greenhouse gas – surely you don’t contest either of those facts? Were the temperature change strictly due to the astronomical effects, why does CO2 level change? Because CO2 is expelled by the ocean as it warms. This is well known, and is positive feedback. I won’t provide cites: all of this is very clear even to someone who has studied relevant Wikipedia pages, or even read the excellent posts by wolfpup. In fact, it is all so clear, that one wonders what your game is, or what sort of “Gotcha” card you want to play. That I didn’t elaborate this earlier is because it seems unnecessary to review such basics to someone claiming awareness of the topic.
Yes, there are also negative feedback mechanisms, e.g. the expulsion of CO2 as water freezes. I mentioned this in the very first post of the subthread; indeed the elegant operation of the complementary feedback mechanisms was what intrigued me – not political considerations.
- If CO2 and temperature were not tied in both directions causally, their lockstep movement would be almost inexplicable. If you can articulate this better than I, take pride in doing so. If instead your intuition is inadequate to grasp the point without further help, that’s your loss.
Does this help?
Have I been asked any? I hadn’t seen any addressed to me. Trollop.
Plus, you do know this isn’t Great Debates, right? Heifer.
Then you will have to rely on evidence and argument – not assertions from authority.
-
How much of an effect would such effects have had standing alone? And how much variation was there?
-
Is this based on calculations or simulations? If it is based on calculations, where I can see the calculations? If it is based on simulations, how have the simulations been tested?
-
How were other possible causes of such variations ruled out?
Nope.
What is not known is what other feedbacks – positive or negative – might have been in effect at the time. Agreed?
Not true at all: Here’s a possible explanation: Temperature drives CO2 levels and changes in CO2 levels (at that level) have little effect on temperature. As a rough analogy, crude oil prices drive the price for a gallon of gasoline at the Sunoco station in Cape May, New Jersey but the price for a gallon of gasoline at the Sunoco station in Cape May, New Jersey has little effect on world crude oil prices.
Does that help?
Hi, Brazil!
Most of the claims you question are present in Wikipedia articles, etc. Read such sources, and challenge any false claim you think they make. At no point have I claimed to have any expertise in climatology.
The question about feedback involves two putative cause/effect relationships; A–> B and B–>A. If A were the only cause of B, then A and B would track, there would be no need for B–>A. The interesting case is where B has multiple causes; for example temperature change is caused by either greenhouse gas change or by other sources, e.g. astronomical effects. Because A (CO2) tracks B (temperature) even when the temperature change is caused by astronomical effects, B–>A (temperature–>CO2) causality can then be posited.
And in fact, such causal mechanisms (leading to positive feedback) are known, as I think you know by now. This debate started with your assertion that the dominance of such positive feedback over a broad range of Pleistocene temperatures was unclear. Did I misunderstand? Do you get it yet?
Sorry, it’s not my responsibility to go looking for the evidence and argument which underpin your claims. If you choose not to answer simple, reasonable questions about the claims you are making, I will draw my own conclusions.
Ok, so it sounds like you concede that if (1) changes in temperature were the primary cause of changes in CO2 levels during the Pleistocene; and if (2) changes in CO2 levels (at that level) have little effect on temperature, then one would expect the two quantities to track one another. Right?
Not exactly, but close enough.
BTW: Are you aware that the positive feedback which is claimed by warmists is not the alleged positive feedback you are describing?
I don’t think the ignorant are even very good at the insults. To really insult somebody you have to be aware, have some knowledge of the subject, and like in regards to climate science, it seems the more insulting a person is, the less they actually know. It’s some sort of law of human nature.
It’s hard to believe anyone is so ignorant as to argue with that figure, it seems quite well known.
source So when you read some fuckhead spewing his ignorance on the matter, well, it’s either willful ignorance or trolling.
Both are obnoxious, but any insult coming from such a deluded source will be treated as the canned garbage it actually is. In fact, it makes all pronouncements a joke after that.
It’s the goddamn internet, if you can’t look up basic facts, things easily verified, then you are not just a troll, you are a bad one.