Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

[piezoe]

Futurecurrents has never posted reasonable peer reviewed primary scientific literature. He has only posted what amounts to AGW fan fiction.

That's true in my opinion, and he keeps repeating the same unproved arguments, that are inconsistent with observation, over and over.

 

[piezoe]

Just wait to people from non-Christian religions use this law in Mississippi to support acts in the name of their religion; for example female circumcision or honor killing by Muslims, or some of the drugs supported by native American religions as part of their rites.

Mississippi basically just passed a law that states the government or other people can not halt an individual's rights to practice their religion. The definition of religion can be made to be very broad.

Exactly! The people who support these laws don't anticipate that they would apply to religions other than their own.

 

[piezoe]

LOL, you use C3 headlines and I use NASA and NOAA and you're accusing ME of using junk science? LOL Too funny.

NASA and NOAA are government agencies, and they publish many reports that are not subjected to outside peer review. They also publish the opinions of their scientists in simplified form that is not subjected to critical technical review, but rather is intended to inform the public or the media of the work going on within these agencies. I am accusing you of relying on Junk science because there is a distinct lack in your posts of references to the latest findings reported in the primary literature. All blogs are not worthless, but you've posted repeatedly diagrams from work done years ago; stuff that appears routinely in the common media that has long been shown to have been defective by later publications in the primary, peer reviewed literature..

Just because something is published in the primary scientific literature, however, does not mean it is necessarily correct. Once there is a later publication retracting, refuting, or calling into question, previously published work, one has to take that into account in deciding what is correct and what isn't. You've treated this topic as though it were static and settled. It isn't. That is something you're going to have to accept if you want to be listened too.

 

[futurecurrents]

Nitro, for me the most serious contradiction present in the arguments of those still holding to the Hansen AGW hypothesis is their assumption of positive feedback. I am a Ph.D. Scientist with many years of experience both carrying out and directing research, and have published many papers in the primary literature, including areas not unrelated to AGW studies. I read, many years ago now, Richard Lindzen's papers which were highly critical of Hansens Hypothesis, but for reasons entirely apart from Hansen's assumption of positive feedback . Then I did not take much further interest until the comments in this forum got me reading again some of the more recent primary literature. It is at this point that it hit home with me that, because of CO2's trace concentration and its relatively weak greenhouse gas properties, the only way such small nominal increases in concentration on the order of 100 molecules per million of air molecules could affect surface temperature in a measurable way would be for there to be positive feedback. I simply accepted, therefore, that Hansen's assumption of positive feedback must be correct. It wasn't until much later that, like a bolt out of the blue, it hit me that there is a huge contradiction in this assumption. (This must have been missed by nearly all of the other scientists as well, although eventually many came around to the idea that the observations are not consistent with the presence of positive feedback.) Here is where the contradiction arises.

If a system, such as a climate system, has any degree of positive feedback, small finite changes in input will drive the output to its extreme, whereas negative feedback will result in the systems response to a small finite change in the input being cancelled to an extent proportional to the amount of feedback. In a climate system the response of the output to a change in the input could be very slow, but in geological time it would still occur in the twinkling of an eye, so to speak. If positive feedback in response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 had been present at any time in our geological past, and the Hansen hypothesis is correct, then surface temperature would have extinguished all life. (The carbon hydrogen bond breaks at ~ 250-75 deg C.)

In a nutshell, what I am saying is that for our climate system to be stable, the feedback response to perturbations must be negative not positive. Either the assumptions for parameter values in the models are far off, so that response time to perturbations are far longer than expected, or the assumption of positive feedback is dead wrong. The present primary literature strongly suggests the latter. If I'm right, a reasonable question is how could this contradiction have been missed by so many?

I can tell from your posts that you are either a mathematician, a physicist or at least have interest in those areas. If you have studied any aspects of electrical engineering, and in particular, operational amplifiers, I think you will have no problem following my argument. I would be very much interested in your comments.

Again, there is no reason to read any further than past this point. Crap assumptions in......crap results of thought.

"CO2's trace concentration and its relatively weak greenhouse gas properties"

^ this is simply red-herring (trace concentrations? And you are supposedly a scientist?) and wrong (weak ghg properties?)

These two core initial points of your argument are wrong. Thus your argument is completely without merit.


And no, positive feedback is NOT needed for additive factors to an equation for the product to increase. And no, it is not needed for the greenhouse effect to increase. And no, Hansen has nothing to do with the fact that CO2 is a strong ghg. These basic, easily proven, faults of your argument - such as it is - renders it completely invalid.

I like to call your argument -such as it is - what it is, just plain ol' BS. The source of which of course is a faithful almost religious adherence to Libertarianism.

 

[nitro]

Since the earth has warmed in the past, I am assuming that this wobble won't have unintended consequences [fingers crossed behind back]. Gulp

Scientists just figured out what's causing Earth to wobble

"Droughts are causing Earth to wobble on its axis, according to new research.

Scientists have long known that the axis on which the planet spins is prone to wavering, but some of the reasons have escaped understanding.

But researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory say droughts and heavy periods of rain in different places around the planet are causing Earth to shake in space.

"We are going through this massive global-scale climate change, to such a degree that the change in climate has been strong enough to affect the rotation of such a giant planet," said study co-author Surendra Adhikari of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California"..."

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/09/scientists-just-figured-out-whats-causing-earth-to-wobble.html

 

[futurecurrents]

NASA and NOAA are government agencies, and they publish many reports that are not subjected to outside peer review. They also publish the opinions of their scientists in simplified form that is not subjected to critical technical review, but rather is intended to inform the public or the media of the work going on within these agencies. I am accusing you of relying on Junk science because there is a distinct lack in your posts of references to the latest findings reported in the primary literature. All blogs are not worthless, but you've posted repeatedly diagrams from work done years ago; stuff that appears routinely in the common media that has long been shown to have been defective by later publications in the primary, peer reviewed literature..

Just because something is published in the primary scientific literature, however, does not mean it is necessarily correct. Once there is a later publication retracting, refuting, or calling into question, previously published work, one has to take that into account in deciding what is correct and what isn't. You've treated this topic as though it were static and settled. It isn't. That is something you're going to have to accept if you want to be listened too.

No shit Sherlock. And nothing has come up to change the fact that AGW is very real.

You are accusing me of using junk science....from NASA and NOAA. I'm accusing you of at LEAST intellectual dishonesty. You are just a slightly less crazed and more impressive sounding jem.



Washington (AFP) - Global warming could make the planet far hotter than currently projected because today's scientific models do not correctly account for the influence of clouds, researchers said this week.

The study in the journal Science was led by researchers at Yale University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

When climate scientists look ahead to how much the planet's surface temperature may warm up in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide -- a byproduct of fossil fuel burning -- they typically predict a rise of between 2.1 and 4.7 degrees Celsius (3.75 to 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit).

But these models overestimate the ability of clouds to reflect back sunlight, and counteract warming in Earth's atmosphere, researchers said.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-could-become-hotter-thought-study-warns-012305983.html?nhp=1

 

[futurecurrents]

From the above study....which will not be found on C3 headlines but IS from Lawrence Livermore and Yale. You know, junk science.

Researchers said their findings add to previous studies that have suggested clouds may make warming worse, rather than lessen it.

"The evidence is piling up against an overall stabilizing cloud feedback," said Zelinka.

"Clouds do not seem to want to do us any favors when it comes to limiting global warming."

 

[piezoe]

From the above study....which will not be found on C3 headlines but IS from Lawrence Livermore and Yale. You know, junk science.

Researchers said their findings add to previous studies that have suggested clouds may make warming worse, rather than lessen it.

"The evidence is piling up against an overall stabilizing cloud feedback," said Zelinka.

"Clouds do not seem to want to do us any favors when it comes to limiting global warming."

I'm not going to comment on the Yahoo version, but if you'll give me the citation to the paper it is based on, I'll be happy to take a look at it. Nevermind. I've found it.

 

[WeToddDid2]

No shit Sherlock. And nothing has come up to change the fact that AGW is very real.

You are accusing me of using junk science....from NASA and NOAA. I'm accusing you of at LEAST intellectual dishonesty. You are just a slightly less crazed and more impressive sounding jem.



Washington (AFP) - Global warming could make the planet far hotter than currently projected because today's scientific models do not correctly account for the influence of clouds, researchers said this week.

The study in the journal Science was led by researchers at Yale University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

When climate scientists look ahead to how much the planet's surface temperature may warm up in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide -- a byproduct of fossil fuel burning -- they typically predict a rise of between 2.1 and 4.7 degrees Celsius (3.75 to 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit).

But these models overestimate the ability of clouds to reflect back sunlight, and counteract warming in Earth's atmosphere, researchers said.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-could-become-hotter-thought-study-warns-012305983.html?nhp=1

So the AGW models are flawed. Got it.

 

[futurecurrents]

So the AGW models are flawed. Got it.

So you're a brainless troll. Got it.