What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

Excerpted from this paper by Bob Carter, cited earlier by Guillermo:

"Richard Lindzen of MIT famously remarked of global warming alarmism a few years ago
that ‘The consensus was reached before the research had even begun’. Another distinguished
natural scientist, the late Sir Charles Fleming from New Zealand, made a similarly prescient
statement when he observed in 1986 that ‘Any body of scientists that adopts pressure group
tactics is endangering its status as the guardian of principles of scientific philosophy that are
worth conserving’. These quotations are apposite, because pressure-group tactics in pursuit of
a falsely claimed consensus have become the characteristic modus operandi of the IPCC-led
global warming alarmism that now surrounds us at every turn."

Jimbo

[Boston]

thats borderline paranoia schizo there friend
but I do like how you dodged the subject
so as not to have to admit
you were wrong


as for the dilutions of a conspiracy of some kind

We don't want to censor the tiny number of dissenting scientists, but we do think that it's very important to place their ideas in context. The immense majority of scientific experts have concluded that the claims of these skeptics are just plain incorrect, not fitting with the huge amount of data on global climate change that has been collected.

Scientific consensus is never a final determination of truth, and we must retain the freedom for scientists to disagree with the current consensus. However, when it comes to global climate change, the issue is what public policy-makers ought to do on a practical level. On a practical level, it's insane to wait for absolutely universal consensus before taking action. We need to work with the best information we've got, and the best information overwhelmingly points to serious, human-induced global climate change.

As much as science works through dissent, it also works through peer review. That means that when one scientist comes up with certain findings, they need to be replicated by other scientists. The process of peer review is what enabled the scientific community to quickly debunk the popular craze about cold fusion energy technology, and it's what prevents scientists in general from simply making outlandish statements about what they believe to be true. Consistent evidence that fits with a hypothesis is necessary before that hypothesis is treated as true.

For this reason, it is inappropriate to claim that one dissenting voice is capable of destroying a theory that has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. There are still people who claim that the Earth is really flat, but they can't back up their claims in a peer-reviewed process, and that's why they're not taken seriously. Creation "scientists" too, make plenty of claims, but those claims are not capable of withstanding review by other scientists, and so they are dismissed. When it comes to global climate change, there are dissenters, but they have not been able to come up with significant information that meets the standards of their peers. So, as earnest as these individuals are, we do not have any reason to trust that their ideas are reliable.

[rasorinc]

Our poles are slowly reversing their magnetic points. I do not save data like you folks do on global warming so I have no long posts. It can be measured
now and it seems to be a quiet secret. The effects will make global warming but a piece of sand on a beach. I will hope that others here who are smarter than I will look into this. What little I have read, heard and seen scares me far more than the causes of global warming as we seem to have no idea why this is happening. Would love to hear from those who can assist in helping
others to understand this happening. Thank you very much, Stan Rasor

[Boston]

you are absolutely right about that
the poles are going through there magnetic flip
I just saw some data on that a few months ago

be aware friend
the detracting view as presented on this page is fraught with industry pseudoscience and blatant false information
be very careful about the data being presented and be sure and check there sources
feel free to check my work as well
I think you will see a huge difference in the quality and caliber of the data

imagine if we had depended on the tobacco industry to let us know if cigarettes were dangerous or not

[Jimbo1490]

Dude

go back to the pertinent posts and quote me; show everyone where I am WRONG. I read all the posts in question and provided the post numbers for all interested persons to see for themselves. I said there is no feedback loop between CO2 and water vapor. Show me where I was wrong; put up or shut up! Show me a paper proving a feedback LOOP(unmitigated positive feedback) with CO2! Oh you can find lots of people who POSTULATE and PROPOSE that a loop exists; yet none is proven. Meanwhile, the climate is not getting warmer, despite increases in the increases in CO2 The natural world around you proves that such a loop does not exist.

Get over it; there's NO LOOP.

Jimbo

[Boston]

I did
you ignored it three pages ago

specifically post # 825 in your own exact words

This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources. If a loop existed, it would be quite indifferent to our tiny contribution to the mix since the natural sources are so large by comparison.

try looking at Tessa Hill's work to help you understand why you are wrong

According to Tessa Hill, a geologist at the University of California, Davis, more methane is released into the atmosphere from ocean deposits during periods of warming than previously thought.

This expelled methane increases temperatures and releases more methane, creating a positive feedback loop.

The research appears tomorrow in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

if you have a subscription you can find it in the National Acadamy of Sciences data base
if not I can look it up for you

but whats the point man
both terms are accurate in there perspective uses
thats whats so funny
at least to me, is that you have completely missed the boat so to speak
its ok to admit you are wrong
happens to all of us

B

[Jimbo1490]

Boston

I'd like to point out one tiny little fact about that paper that may have escaped your eagle-like gaze; that paper deals with a alleged loop between methane, NOT water vapor.

The alleged loop we were and still are discussing is a loop between water vapor and CO2, NOT methane and anything else.

Got it?

Jimbo

[Boston]

you said clearly and I quote again

This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2.

the hole thing reads as follows

This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources. If a loop existed, it would be quite indifferent to our tiny contribution to the mix since the natural sources are so large by comparison. A loop such as the AGW alarmists describe would lead to an unstable equilibrium which would mean the atmosphere would be unable to return to it's equilibrium state and a runaway greenhouse condition would have resulted. Since CO2 concentration were at times 10X and even 20X what they are now and yet the oceans did not boil shows that this scenario is certainly far from likely now.

you are clearly arguing against the existence of feedback loops which you now seem to hold dear in there negative form as a saving grace for allowing the oil and gas industry to pump even more co2 into the atmosphere

and what is a unstable equilibrium

[Boston]

Jim you are dead wrong
both the term feedback and feedback loops are used in climate research
and they represent events that have been observed not just theorized

[Jimbo1490]

I did see the word CO2, however, If you go back and read my posts, that is the loop I was referring to. The paper you cited was referring to methane. It was not even referring to CO2 or water vapor

You are really stretching your credibility, here. The sad part is, I don't think you even see the magnitude of your blunder.

The important thing is that CO2 does not form a feedback loop with water vapor, just as I asserted. This is the only way that the little bit of CO2 that's in the atmosphere (~.04%) could possibly leverage its tiny intrinsic greenhouse potential to 'regulate' the temperature of the whole atmosphere.

Jimbo

[Boston]

today from # 1563

Go to the Christy lecture on Youtube, and fast forward to 21:00. There he explains the corresponding negative feedback. First, he acknowledges the positive feedback of water vapor and CO2 concentrations you pointed out in your citation. He then explains the negative feedback which results, which is that cloud albedo changes, reducing the radiative budget more than the resulting greenhouse feedback increases it. It's described in a paper by Roy Spencer, et al. I mentioned the existence of this same feedback mechanism about 25 pages back in the thread, but I did not link to the paper at that time.

from # 825

This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop; temperature drives CO2. Natural sources of CO2 swamp anthropogenic sources. If a loop existed, it would be quite indifferent to our tiny contribution to the mix since the natural sources are so large by comparison. A loop such as the AGW alarmists describe would lead to an unstable equilibrium which would mean the atmosphere would be unable to return to it's equilibrium state and a runaway greenhouse condition would have resulted. Since CO2 concentration were at times 10X and even 20X what they are now and yet the oceans did not boil shows that this scenario is certainly far from likely now.

seems pretty contradictory to me
in one you say categorically that co2 does not form feed back loops
then you describe a negative feedback in which co2 plays a role

now
go actually look up the definitions of feedback in regards to climate change
and feedback loop in regards to same

learn something
in the process you may find out its ok to admit when you are wrong
like when you were wrong about there not being a consensus about climate change
97% is definitely a consensus and its a growing consensus at that

[Jimbo1490]

Try to remember that the term 'feedback' IS NOT synoymous with the term 'feedback loop', then go back and read any text I've posted here with that new understanding about the distinction between these terms, and you will see there's no contradiction AT ALL. Feedback can be positive or negative, but only a positive feedback can form a loop. But positive feedbacks do not necessarily always form loops. There may be other negative feedbacks that prevent this from happening (as well as other factors like hysteresis and damping). That our climate is relatively stable means that it must logically be dominated by negative feedbacks with respect to greenhouse gases.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

From the Bob Carter paper cited above:

"IPCC models, which invoke a positive feedback loop from water vapour, predict
much greater increases up to 6.4℃ for a doubling in carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2001,
2007). These calculations take numerical account of only positive feedback effects,
especially that of increasing water vapour, and neglect negative feedback loops such
as the generation of additional (reflective) low cloud cover. Alternative calculations by
independent scientists suggest an increase of only 0.2-1.0℃ for a doubling of carbon
dioxide (Isdo 2001)."

Jimbo

[Boston]

wrong again Jim

from the NSIDC
( National Snow and Ice Data Center )

feedback
Any change in the environment leading to additional and enhanced changes in that system is the result of a positive feedback mechanism.
( this was later amended to include negative systems as well )

feedback loop
In the climate system a "feedback loop" refers to a pattern of interacting processes where a change in one variable, through interaction with other variables in the system, either reinforces the original process (positive feedback) or suppresses the process (negative feedback).

they are nearly identical and both are used interchangeably
I can site countless articles were there use is in the same context

not only did you get that completely wrong but you then went on to state in one of your most recent

Try to remember that the term 'feedback' IS NOT synoymous with the term 'feedback loop', then go back and read any text I've posted here with that new understanding about the distinction between these terms, and you will see there's no contradiction AT ALL. Feedback can be positive or negative, but only a positive feedback can form a loop

sorry but I was rolling when I read that ( frankly Im starting to wonder if your just pulling my leg again as that bit above really was hilariously funny )
now would you like to go tell the National Snow and Ice Data Center they have there terminology wrong and will have to fall in line with another famous Jimism
and that last bit was almost as good as an "unstable equilibrium"
"only a positive feedback can form a loop" ?
where did you dream that up
feel free to site the dictionary you got that from

for God sakes man show some class
just admit you are wrong

the farther you argue this the more clueless you show yourself to be

both feedback and feedback loops exist and are regularly sited in the literature
it is contradictory to state in one breath that feedback loops do not exist and have been proven so
and in another to try and ramble on about negative feedback being some kind of savior disemboweling the hole global climate change theory

looks like you have a touch of hoof and mouth
just type in something funny and Im sure someone will give you a hand
good luck with that, friend
your going to need it
B

check and mate
time for a bear

[Jimbo1490]

If your alleged loop exists then why isn't the climate running away right now? You're not saying it is, are you? There is no feedback loop (runaway feedback) between CO2 and water vapor.

The paper you cited in support of the alleged loop said nothing about neither CO2 nor water vapor.

When are you going to admit that that paper was not at all applicable to the topic under consideration?

Jimbo