I’m pretty sure I did just that. You’re all worried because the PPM levels of carbon dioxide have been high at some point in the past several hundred thousand years and until we can explain it, don’t seem to think we can consider man’s impact. When I demonstrated that it is now 30% higher than at any point in that time? Crickets.
Pretty funny, domestication has it’s price after all. Thank you for your honest answer, yeah, hurricanes are about the most violent example of positive feedback.
Good, what don’t you understand? Or perhaps a better question is what do you propose as an alternate. It’s called an initial condition, baby girl, you should try it … makes measuring easier.
How cute, did you forget to include your own personal definition? The definition I’m using is correct in the context of climatology. Hey, before you come back from your own contextual universe, please tell Red Riding Hood she’s a lying bitch.
My apologies, I must have missed your comment above … (yeah … missed). I agree 400 ppm carbon dioxide is something that needs researched, and there are studies in progress. I think it’s critically important to learn how nature removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, perhaps solutions found there will serve our needs better.
I’ve seen this enough to withhold any disputes, I was wondering if you have a non-Wikipedia citation for this? Specifically what clock-work mechanic IS considered adequate to explain the cycling the past 2.6 million years.
The difficulty I’m having is the data only shows that carbon dioxide levels and average global temperatures rising and falling together, and not that one causes the other. You’ve stated that the “causal mechanisms (leading to positive feedback) are known”, yet what you describe is equilibrium … and how this changes as forcing changes. You’ve stated “A–>B and B–>A”, do you mean A<==>B? If so, then it’s too simplistic and doesn’t account for the myriad of other considerations, particularly suspended particles and … the “other” 40% of man’s contribution … water vapor.
I feel your butthurt. I posted a clear question which illustrated a thought experiment concerning water vapor and feedbacks in climate, and not only did nobody respond, they became pedantic and pretended if it wasn’t a specific question aimed at a specific person then they would not answer, much less discuss the concept.
People can be so cruel.
The concept of water vapor being a feedback only is based on … something. It is easy to describe, I have done it multiple times. In fact, the idea that the warmists has about it is pretty damn funny when you put in context.
The slight warming from increased CO2 will force more water vapor to go into the atmosphere, leading to more warming. More warming results in more water vapor, that is the assumption that leads to this. It’s PHYSICS! bitch.
But, and this where the assumption starts to break down, more warming from increased WV should lead to more WV, because warming is warming, it doesn’t matter what the cause is, hotter means more WV to the simplistic warmer mind. In the mind of the warmer, the only thing that can happen when it gets warmer is more water vapor, which is the primary greenhouse gas, and more if it will cause more warming. It’s the prime mechanism of how CO2 will cause an extreme change in the energy balance of the planet. There is no getting around this, it’s a key part of global warming theory.
Just doubling CO2 won’t do it. That much is basic physics and climate SCIENCE! BITCH!
So WV is a FEEDBACK and it makes it WARMER, But CO2 is a forcing, but WV is not. Of course if MORE CO2 causes warming, then CO2 is a FORCING. That’s the definition of a forcing.
Something that forces the energy balance to change.
Now read carefully. “More water vapor will cause the energy balance to change, and make it warmer”. Remember, that is a basic FACT of CO2 theory, that the increase in WV will cause warming. (not cooling, warming)
So, the increase in water vapor will cause the planet to warm.
At the same time, when it’s water vapor forcing the change, it’s not a forcing. Because … something.
If you point out that the warming from CO2 should cause the oceans to warm, and that will cause more CO2 to be released, (or less to be absorbed, it doesn’t matter), and that such a thing is a feedback, well … huh.
CO is a feedback. More CO2 causes warming, which causes more CO2.
Unlike water vapor, which when it increases, does NOT cause an increase in water vapor. Which is a scientific fact. Water causes both warming and cooling, in all kinds of ways, but it is not a feedback. When water vapor increases in the atmosphere (which it does all the time, as well as decreases), it does not somehow make it warmer, which causes more water vapor, which causes warming, which causes more water vapor.
That isn’t happening, does not happen. The climate would be unstable, the energy balance would constantly change, with the planet warming up.
But CO2, is actually is a feedback, in that by forcing warming, it also causes more CO2 to stay in the atmosphere, due to the oceans behavior from warming.
Now stay tuned, somebody will be along to debunk all of this by simply calling me a name.
SCIENCE!
There is also another theorized huge feedback from CO2, which is by causing warming it melts permafrost and releases stored methane from the arctic regions. This methane causes warming, so this makes methane a feedback, not a forcing.
But, methane degrades from UV to CO2 rather quickly, so that the end result is more CO2 in the atmosphere. So once again, the warming from CO2 results in more CO2, which makes it a feedback.
What? That’s just crazy talk.
You are saying that since CO2 causes warming, and that results in more CO2, that CO2 is a feedback?
Then that makes water vapor a feedback too! Because more water vapor makes it warmer which leads to more water vapor.
Except the amount of WV in the global atmosphere is remarkably stable over time. At least during the warm interglacial periods.
It’s goddamn funny that the trolls, who drop in just to troll, never providing any science, much less SCIENCE! complain that this is a troll thread.
Priceless.
The more recent trend for NH winters, say the period that even the global mean started dropping, rather than rising.
Meanwhile, even the goddamn GISS temps, which always show more increase than any other dataset, even GISS shows what is up.
While the winters shows -.17 C drop, even the annual trend is negative.
We can runthat trend out to 2013, it don’t matter much. And goddamn if them February temperatures have actually been going down, just like people out in the weather, you know, working people, just like they noticed.
Which makes them warministas, (who a kept a tellin everyone it was getting warmer and how you people just don’t know jackshit about climate), well it makes them look like damn fools is what it does.
Cause everyone who ever heard some warmer talk, knows they been going on about global warming for 25 years now, saying the winters was gonna get warmer, with less snow. Now when you look at the data and see that cooling trend, that is goddamn fucking hilarious, I don’t care who you are.
Take that 2012 paper I mentioned about a dozen times now. They say the cooling trend for boreal winters goes back two and half decades. That means 1987, since it was a 2012 paper.
And I’ll be goddamned if whe I checked,that trend shows up clear as day. It might seem funny, but that don’t mean it ain’t the gosh darn truth, right there on the official page and everything.
Now how is a global warmists gonna deal with that?
You can see all this for yourself.
January trend
February trend
December trend
Winter trend
Still cooling. That’s the straight dope there. Facts.
But what about the summers? Yep, warming.
The entire year averaged out Slight warming for Chicago.
Here’s the thing about that. warming summers and colder winters is the EXACT FUCKING OPPOSITE of what CO2 forced global warming predicts. So a annual warming, that includes cooling for winters, especially at mid to upper lattitudes in the NH, that is THE OPPOSITE of what the models show. Models based on the GODDAMN THEORY OF CO2 FORCED GLOBAL WARMING.
This point is not subtle, yet the alarmists fuckheads can’t grasp it.
And I’m not talking about the people who post here. I mean the top climate experts who still insist their version of global warming is happening.
They are completely full of shit if they tell you their models have been correct.
In fact, it’ such a huge error, it can’t be just stupidity.
Unlike you, I don’t have my own personal definitions for scientific terms
Tell that to the IPCC. They specifically exclude H[sub]2[/sub]O from their definition of radiative forcing (well, tropospheric H[sub]2[/sub]O which is close enough for government work, CH[sub]4[/sub]-derived stratospheric H[sub]2[/sub]O is its own beast, really).
Do you have even the tiniest inkling as to why that might be? I somehow doubt it, as you’ve already shown your ignorance of science, but I’ll give you a tiny hint - it’s got to do with what we mean when we talk about “climate”, and a certain logical fallacy we don’t want to commit.
I have literally no idea what this insane non sequitur even means, unless it’s code for “watchwolf is a crazy person”, which, well, I already could tell from your postings, but …thanks, I guess?
More dribble, less science
I know you are, but what am I?
Hey, wipe up your drooling, lest they evaporate and add water vapor to the atmosphere. Do you have the slightest clue why the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere might be a net zero forcing? Does anything anterior to your amygdala actually do anything in there, or are you basically a stem with just enough motor skill to punch at keys?
It’s how science is done these days. You just ignore evidence, and call names.
Oh the burn, the burn. Your rhetoric, nothing can stand before it.
Except maybe just defining your terms, but no fuckhead ever wants to actually do that.
It’s like clockwork really.
Like I said, they’re not my terms, they’re the IPCC’s terms. Specifically Section 6.1.1 of the TAR.
The part that includes the words “the term forcing is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system […]** with no dynamically-induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water** (vapour, liquid, and solid forms)”
Fuckhead.
No … please explain “why the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere might be a net zero [climatological] forcing”.
Even better, explain why “This forcing of the climate change in the IPCC parlance is to be distinguished from forcing definitions initiated for other purposes”. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/258.htm
Wait, you want an explanation for why one thing is different from another thing which is not like the first thing? Is that it? So it must really worry you that potential and kinetic energies are defined differently - I mean, they both have “energy” in the name, don’t they? They must be the same. Just like radiative forcing, cloud forcing and ENSO-related sea surf. temp. forcing must be the same thing, right? I mean, they all have “forcing” in the name. How dare we distinguish between them!
Mr Dribble is a disappointment
Some significant fraction of water vapor in the atmosphere has an effect on a thing called “albedo”. This effect is somewhat non-trivial.
You tell 'em. You should go punch him in the face.
Oh my God, you think water vapor reflects sunlight? Do you see water vapor, hell no, is sunlight shattered by water vapor, again, NO. Pffft … clouds reflect sunlight, but clouds are liquid water … ice reflects sunlight, but ice is frozen water. Water vapor is inert to the wavelengths that are received from the sun, the land and oceans absorb that energy and re-radiate in the infra-red, for which water vapor is very receptive to.
To be fair, albedo is an important consideration for any kind of energy budget. Looks like a little less than 30% of incoming flux is reflected back out into space. This percentage is actually decreasing over time as the ice melts, although increasing cloud cover increases this. Overall, albedo is a negative feedback mechanism for global warming … as average temperatures go up, theoretically, cloud cover increases causing temperatures to go back down.
Try again, dear sir, run out all your catchwords …