It does to a nutjob
Global Warming: For Experts Only
- Thread starter julianVGS
- Start date
It does to a nutjob
I just want to comment that in my post above, unless i mention a specific mechanism, when I refer to positive or negative feedback I am referring to the net of all individual feedback mechanisms. There are of course many individual phenomena, both positive and negative, that have been identified. What is important is the net of all those individual phenomena.
I could mention a specific phenomena that is associated with positive feedback. It is thermally driven phase transition of water from the liquid state to the gaseous state (humidity increase) . Water vapor is a greenhouse gas more important than in CO2. However increased water vapor is not only associated with warming but also with cooling due to evaporation (Water has a large heat of vaporization) and cloud formation that is on balance cooling. Some one will correct me if I am wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, Hansen originally assumed that evaporation , increased humidity, and cloud formation was net positive in its feedback contribution. This could be right, I'm not sure, but my intuition tells me it is probably incorrect. In any case the net feedback of all contributing factors must be negative. That is to say the Earth resists changes in mean temperature. What is often argued among researchers is how sensitive the surface temperature is to changes in the CO2 concentration. These estimates vary substantially among researchers. I happen to believe Hansen's original numbers for climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration were wildly too high.
I could mention a specific phenomena that is associated with positive feedback. It is thermally driven phase transition of water from the liquid state to the gaseous state (humidity increase) . Water vapor is a greenhouse gas more important than in CO2. However increased water vapor is not only associated with warming but also with cooling due to evaporation (Water has a large heat of vaporization) and cloud formation that is on balance cooling. Some one will correct me if I am wrong, but if memory serves me correctly, Hansen originally assumed that evaporation , increased humidity, and cloud formation was net positive in its feedback contribution. This could be right, I'm not sure, but my intuition tells me it is probably incorrect. In any case the net feedback of all contributing factors must be negative. That is to say the Earth resists changes in mean temperature. What is often argued among researchers is how sensitive the surface temperature is to changes in the CO2 concentration. These estimates vary substantially among researchers. I happen to believe Hansen's original numbers for climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration were wildly too high.
Last edited:
any thinking person knew that is what you meant.
but you had to post what you did because dnc trolls will frame it the wrong way on purpose.
but you had to post what you did because dnc trolls will frame it the wrong way on purpose.
From piehole
"Positive feedback is a requirement to show a significant effect of rising CO2"
Complete and total bullshit. As we would expect from a think tank employee.
Co2 is earth's most important greenhouse gas and does NOT require any additional postive feedback......although postive feedback is in fact happening through the action of increased water vapor, reduced albedo (ice and snow), and release of methane from permafrost as it melts.
"Positive feedback is a requirement to show a significant effect of rising CO2"
Complete and total bullshit. As we would expect from a think tank employee.
Co2 is earth's most important greenhouse gas and does NOT require any additional postive feedback......although postive feedback is in fact happening through the action of increased water vapor, reduced albedo (ice and snow), and release of methane from permafrost as it melts.
And this continues to be ignored by jerm and piehole....
Maybe it's because they have NO interest in the truth and the facts. Maybe they don't understand the chart.
*******************
How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?
There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.
Maybe it's because they have NO interest in the truth and the facts. Maybe they don't understand the chart.
*******************
How long has CO2 been contributing to increased warming? According to NASA, “Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975”. Is there a reliable way to identify CO2’s influence on temperatures over that period?
There is: we can measure the wavelengths of long-wave radiation leaving the Earth (upward radiation). Satellites have recorded the Earth's outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.
Figure 2: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).
This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc.
Another quote from the think tank employee
"It isn't that anthropomorphic contributions aren't present. They are, and they are insignificant."
OK, do I really have to post THE CHART again? https://www.google.com/imgres?imgre...&docid=zqWwkPyOkkIR-M&h=405&w=540#h=405&w=540
The great and brilliant scientist here sure seems to be ignoring some very basic facts.
"It isn't that anthropomorphic contributions aren't present. They are, and they are insignificant."
OK, do I really have to post THE CHART again? https://www.google.com/imgres?imgre...&docid=zqWwkPyOkkIR-M&h=405&w=540#h=405&w=540
The great and brilliant scientist here sure seems to be ignoring some very basic facts.
Last edited:
Right wing fossil fuel related think tanks have agents out on the internet trying to sway public opinion about global warming. True or false.
Let's see just how naive and ignorant you are.