Remember me
▼ Content

So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
17-03-2017 02:56
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ceist wrote:
That chart would not have been from the DOE website. Can you provide a link to the actual website where you got it?


I happened on it one day while researching some stuff. I threw in a picture folder but forgot to link it. I did want to be able to link it later, but when I went back looking it is simply gone!

I won't claim it as from the DOE, but it's just weird it disappeared...as it is when people mysteriously disappear when they are too involved with the wrong side of governments.

....and it's fun to tweak Surface Decal with it. He gets soooo pissed off!


I right-clicked on your image and did a Google search for it

https://www.google.com.au/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiu7fsbuMYozIdEcQsgZuDZIEX5lzs2teWLUHYwjfFMb4_1FLCI9WvZCj3MKiwTR7NyEVaJiZGNviUxq1KCRkKgP_1Umhfn1MFYs4x4KFPNGw8jUC1VRqOY3EGfByi-JrwUe4QVsvGNcYAJgvhonulE5KOL64NDuj8NmtLAwWEV5ISaRgL32zuR7UwGBiBP0dfYftM83i2CZY3CduP_1d6w8AMq66QXpSBeGOKF4Ophim2o10sjVPKDHeqcKdGHADet_11EVywzAcopEZx1cxvpOKxiGPhvbMqDKCnoREi6SxbA5Otu9ZPmFImVMm7nyV2zkXPcQNMYhX2aU2bCB8UY8lN4qmDkcY0rp8agxCwsF_1P0H2yc6kjWC26inp-zKHpp7ONPAay-Rf0aP9uYSN9ij7P7XNKQ8UnjNbac28yiKRYOOHWwAygYND57EsWrul9XEe0SKnXo3gVooDh5suALytBhjeBqrcNjWFcRurs1myTtsQxSnRapCBkKWRzek2RPEwNlWjfXvRzo36X-kWbaDs0aHGnvUDZNwbbTuDeMONQ9gCkWfkMIWyhemxLeRd1i90gcvsU8VFevN9hTv1JxoVwB2vGXKirsjT20nv3pi-6fOVCcekEaL2Ro9GbxRR7rG3jj6lRNGTwVVvcTqD11kYK0BhwkRm4lbtbDljfJwUewQvpJVlgl_11Ks9y_1R7uXUUwIybav_1u74dB2RV7pRYVKiZAGGBhRiwi2llG4tIvjq8auUfBhE5jzVyNEnMo1YQrzigV7XOQJ3TP5pOZFIr5tf_14QPZkgw-Jf8yNiHDXL90sKRPvo1t8YIWQa6gZG6UKpdEl4fT4s_1VZyROlBXJK7qweP7E_12EZgaU2pGStET-vQPWCLYPMwtrcU1lIqBCX7qFXg5BU36dyjELgrtG-kEb_1P1uYfKT02yPrghy6qmh5pCgerXSgfJBM0zgQtoYuL1aLCQxEBaS3XFHNC9Qup2qQJZ7sC3Ky9SCCJJORC-2eC7-2RzRm_1cMPj4STG7IrPKYcBPJKXTAxv-sa8ZSL5OxldRmYuULxdDyzFd0yjsrXIBkem4aGdm0DVw7ObBS2_1L0aYlRGLibdXE9FG98OZ0xOlK_1qERDsPyIK7hBybA9TwhbBUzLfueAicPxSJpsNMCbKrw-86A1XSxOuHnv1XZPiyp9nCGgNrt6498ABmP8o5nt5kg6Ey1nThlyZu9Mz3sahcy9wqyg0Bk-iqvnshJqHA-GOsw7eleeyMNnzXZaB9-PirzNcWX5OHUirjFu5QvdYgu4hcAIBbO6vKckZJTESDCceVCnTlw9tkj9iKx4PqXfIJAspYhTtDhGLw1lJLG5se5XgOqYevPqc3V42na1JPU59jsB2vgn233X_1dyLQYOZsbKeQ80TUKbt9idJPPAmB8jSOyS5leKRIHsw6vpxUCiBi8K5vviXiwUkcpzk9NTy9U59V5OS-ejxnD3a7PCYAFUG2hZnxiZ8oyUphVhfq-jrJDI3MCogImQ0BivnJJjL9yVGjSGrScHPL7Z6XUGv-09mHqQ02N7vOAvBYVvPXm4L4ElVJ-fkih07nimbu1IAaCtD1FgP-va9dGR5gK8tbRT3Xf

Looks like it probably originated from some rubbish anti-science blog that just made stuff up, not the DOE. (not surprising, as it was complete nonsense)

Edited to add: The 'data' looks like it originated from Monte Heib's pseudoscience blog 'geocraft'. No wonder it was nonsense.
Edited on 17-03-2017 03:09
17-03-2017 03:28
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Da?


And do you know what "my side" is claiming that we are doing?


Honestly, no. First it was trapped heat but now the conversation seams to be shifting towards "enhanced" heat.....exactly like the shifting from "global warming" to "climate change".


So when did 'they' 'shift from global warming to climate change'?

Bearing in mind that the 'CC' in IPCC stands for climate change and that the IPCC was formed in 1988.

If you look at the history of the development of the science behind climate change/global warming you will see that both terms are used. Global warming causes climate change. Pretty obvious.

A free updated online version of Professor Spencer Weart's textbook "The Discovery of Global Warming"

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674031890

can be found on the American Institute of Physics website:

http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
17-03-2017 15:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Don't be stupid. You know this whole crock is about the narrative. "Global warming" wasn't selling for 20 years. Not enough people bought it. I was taught global warming in grade school in 1980. I bought it for a while. But then 20-30 years later no predictions of disaster came true. New York was dry!! You guys had to change the narrative to something a little more sexy. It may have always been climate change, but it was global warming till about ten years ago.
17-03-2017 16:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
It doesn't matter, use whatever phrase, informed people will know what you are talking about. Speaking for myself I don't expect people to "buy" anything I hope they look into things. You are advocating a point of veiw and are pushing a narrative, you're not out to honestly inform.
17-03-2017 16:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
spot wrote:
It doesn't matter, use whatever phrase, informed people will know what you are talking about. Speaking for myself I don't expect people to "buy" anything I hope they look into things. You are advocating a point of veiw and are pushing a narrative, you're not out to honestly inform.


Veiw is spelled view. Isn't that how you answer questions around here?

You know that buy means believe. And you really don't want ME looking into things.

What's my narrative?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
17-03-2017 17:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Don't be stupid. You know this whole crock is about the narrative. "Global warming" wasn't selling for 20 years. Not enough people bought it. I was taught global warming in grade school in 1980. I bought it for a while. But then 20-30 years later no predictions of disaster came true. New York was dry!! You guys had to change the narrative to something a little more sexy. It may have always been climate change, but it was global warming till about ten years ago.

All your posts are pretty much a big old crock of stupid shit...

You swallow too much tabloid crap.
Edited on 17-03-2017 17:46
17-03-2017 17:47
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)

All your posts are pretty much a big old crock of stupid...


Don't like my opinion? That's perfectly fine. Don't ask me to pay for your opinion.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
17-03-2017 17:51
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:

All your posts are pretty much a big old crock of stupid...


Don't like my opinion? That's perfectly fine. Don't ask me to pay for your opinion.


I gave you my opinion of your posts for free.

Edited on 17-03-2017 17:52
17-03-2017 18:06
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
It doesn't matter, use whatever phrase, informed people will know what you are talking about. Speaking for myself I don't expect people to "buy" anything I hope they look into things. You are advocating a point of veiw and are pushing a narrative, you're not out to honestly inform.


Veiw is spelled view. Isn't that how you answer questions around here?

You know that buy means believe. And you really don't want ME looking into things.

What's my narrative?


You are advocating anti environment policy and are being deceptive in order to do that. As far as I can tell you have no concern about objective truth and see this all as a game against your perceived opponents. You aren't alone in this. Why people want to do this I have no idea, perhaps your mother did not hug you enough when you were a baby or something.



IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-03-2017 18:13
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
You are advocating anti environment policy

No, I love the environment and take excellent care of it. I am a landowner with several acres and there's nowhere I'd rather be than outside.


and are being deceptive in order to do that.

How? I've told no lies. However I have put up stories about 5 million dead every year due to global warming. That is not deceptive?


As far as I can tell you have no concern about objective truth and see this all as a game against your perceived opponents.


This is not a game and you are only my opponent because you are costing me lots of money.

perhaps your mother did not hug you enough when you were a baby or something.


did yours?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
17-03-2017 21:49
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
In this very thread you posted a graph you said was an official graph from the department of energy when it was not from the department of energy, what is that other then an attempt at deception?
Edited on 17-03-2017 21:50
17-03-2017 22:02
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Learn how to read!! Here is my post about the chart. Nice try.

I happened on it one day while researching some stuff. I threw in a picture folder but forgot to link it. I did want to be able to link it later, but when I went back looking it is simply gone!

I won't claim it as from the DOE, but it's just weird it disappeared...as it is when people mysteriously disappear when they are too involved with the wrong side of governments.
18-03-2017 05:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Learn how to read!! Here is my post about the chart. Nice try.

I happened on it one day while researching some stuff. I threw in a picture folder but forgot to link it. I did want to be able to link it later, but when I went back looking it is simply gone!

I won't claim it as from the DOE, but it's just weird it disappeared...as it is when people mysteriously disappear when they are too involved with the wrong side of governments.


We can read. Here's your post:

GasGuzzler wrote:
You did see the graph from the DOE right?


It was only after it was pointed out to you that it wasn't from the DOE that you changed your story and admitted that it wasn't. But you added some conspiratorial nonsense as well about it 'mysteriously disappearing'.

It was obvious it came from some junkscience conspiracy blog and you were gullibly fooled into believing it came from the DOE. You just forgot which conspiracy blog you got it from.
Edited on 18-03-2017 05:53
18-03-2017 14:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Learn how to read!! Here is my post about the chart. Nice try.



As Ceist said that was not your first post on the graph the first one was;

"but I have a Dept Of Energy graph(which is now nowhere to be found online,I suspect they were told to obliterate it) saying it's as high as 96%, which would put mans contribution to total greenhouse gas at 1 tenth of one percent."

You would have us believe that the DOE are making a ridiculous claim and forces unnamed are suppressing it.

Why go through the bother of proving how you are being and are continue to be deceptive when anyone interested could read the thread all the way through?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-03-2017 16:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Wow, you guys are just waiting around to be offended. I said you can't find it online. Doesn't that automatically bring in to question the validity of the source? Maybe I give you too much credit. I was simply leaving the graph out there fore debate. Is it real? Is it not? Why is it gone?

This is what you get when someone is spoon fed their entire life. Can't read and think for yourself. I guess I'll have to spell it out more clearly for you morons next time. I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

While we're on the subject, what is the DOE stated level of man made CO2? Can anyone find that? Why isn't that readily available?
Edited on 18-03-2017 17:18
19-03-2017 01:20
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wow, you guys are just waiting around to be offended. I said you can't find it online. Doesn't that automatically bring in to question the validity of the source? Maybe I give you too much credit. I was simply leaving the graph out there fore debate. Is it real? Is it not? Why is it gone?

This is what you get when someone is spoon fed their entire life. Can't read and think for yourself. I guess I'll have to spell it out more clearly for you morons next time. I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

While we're on the subject, what is the DOE stated level of man made CO2? Can anyone find that? Why isn't that readily available?


Just highlighting the obvious fact that you're a gullible conspiracy addled scientifically illiterate lying moronic fool.
19-03-2017 16:04
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wow, you guys are just waiting around to be offended. I said you can't find it online. Doesn't that automatically bring in to question the validity of the source? Maybe I give you too much credit. I was simply leaving the graph out there fore debate. Is it real? Is it not? Why is it gone?

This is what you get when someone is spoon fed their entire life. Can't read and think for yourself. I guess I'll have to spell it out more clearly for you morons next time. I do apologize for the misunderstanding.

While we're on the subject, what is the DOE stated level of man made CO2? Can anyone find that? Why isn't that readily available?


What makes you think that I'm offended? I'm just pointing out inconsistencies in your position.

Spoon fed? You are the one that wants someone to find out if the DOE even has a position on the level of Man made CO2 for you.

If I wanted to find that out I would look it up at the source. not get it off some blog that will protect me from hearing stuff I don't want to hear.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
19-03-2017 19:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Spoon fed? You are the one that wants someone to find out if the DOE even has a position on the level of Man made CO2 for you.

If I wanted to find that out I would look it up at the source. not get it off some blog that will protect me from hearing stuff I don't want to hear.


No, Spot, I don't need it spoon fed to me . I would simply like to revisit the Man made vs natural CO2 discussion, but it will only get sidetracked if you don't like my sources. This seams to be a topic that your side would like to avoid at all costs. I actually understand Surface Details 30% percent argument from the 280 ppm baseline, but there are a lot of claims to the contrary. What is YOUR number and what is your source?

Oh, and I still haven't got an answer from anyone on why we can't seem to warm up even close to historical temp spike levels. Anyone?
RE: Summary19-03-2017 21:14
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.
19-03-2017 23:36
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Ceist wrote:Just highlighting the obvious fact that you're a gullible conspiracy addled scientifically illiterate lying moronic fool.


So I'm too skeptical and too gullible. Huh....I suppose that's possible. After all, CO2 is causing flooding and drought simultaneously, so I guess however you like it.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 19-03-2017 23:37
20-03-2017 06:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: too skkkeptikkkal and too gullible.

"old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" is too too AGW skkkeptikkkal & tootin' & gushin' gullibility. "gaslighter" loves that kkk(always small letters).
Edited on 20-03-2017 06:29
20-03-2017 09:21
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ceist wrote:Just highlighting the obvious fact that you're a gullible conspiracy addled scientifically illiterate lying moronic fool.


So I'm too skeptical and too gullible. Huh....I suppose that's possible. After all, CO2 is causing flooding and drought simultaneously, so I guess however you like it.


No, you're not sceptical at all. You gullibly and un-sceptically swallow whatever you want to believe from crap junkscience conspiracy sources, yet flat out deny/reject evidence-based facts and science.

And yes, of course climate change can cause both flooding and drought. Why would you think it wouldn't?
Edited on 20-03-2017 09:22
20-03-2017 13:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Ceist wrote:
e conspiracy sources, yet flat out deny/reject evidence-based facts and science.
And yes, of course climate change can cause both flooding and drought. Why would you think it wouldn't?


Because I'm not gullible.

Show me your "fact based science" that proves me wrong.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
20-03-2017 16:14
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
With respect to the recent floods and droughts, these are examples of weather, not climate. The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.
20-03-2017 17:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Why do you keep parroting this idiotic claim that only 3.2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made? What possible justification can there be for this?

You did see the graph from the DOE right?

We know that CO2 levels had been roughly constant at about 280 ppm over the past 10,000 years, we know that they started to rise at an increasing rate with the start of the industrial revolution, and know that human emissions have been more than sufficient to account for the rise to, currently, 405 ppm.

That's why I quoted you and your claim of 30%. Did you just get too pissed off to read?

It is utterly illogical to claim that the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 405 ppm is due to some other unidentified cause, when the very obvious fact of human CO2 emissions easily accounts for it.

Maybe, but it also seems quite illogical to think we can change the climate when we are responsible for less 1% (your figure of 30%) of all greenhouse gasses.

If the temp has risen 1 degree in 100 years, you could also say man has raised the temp 1 100th of a degree in 100 years, or 1 1000th of a degree in the last decade.....but 5 million people are dead every year due to the global furnace.


As usual we get the BS crowd ready willing and able to spread disinformation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

CO2 comprises (at present) 0.04% of the gases in the atmosphere.

The reaction has been:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm

If you observe the chart in this article you will see that CO2 has been increasing at a linear rate from 1850 to 1950. It then increased it's growth but again at a linear rate from 1960 to present.

However, the growth in CO2 generated by man hasn't been completely linear: the use of fossil fuels since 1775 has been exponential.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10

So there appears to be NO direct connection between the growth of CO2 and the generation of that gas by man.

Also - we know that there are other sources that are supposedly increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere quickly:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/melting-tundra-releases-carbon-dioxide-quickly/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/

What all of this means is that there is FAR more CO2 released than man produces and the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT respond to the release in any manner that we can understand.

So the very fact that the True Believers are addressing this as some sort of man-made global warming makes one wonder why they would do so? This is pretty obviously some sort of mental problem in which they MUST find reasons and it MUST be someone's problem (other than their own of course.)
Edited on 20-03-2017 17:50
20-03-2017 18:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Frescomexico wrote:
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.


Planck's law says that energy in equals energy out. So the feedback is ALWAYS negative. The more energy inserted, the more is released.

But with a catch - the mechanism in which the energy is both received and released can change so that the atmosphere in between can APPEAR to be a positive feedback mechanism.

For instance: There is a hypothesis that a warmer atmosphere will cause more evaporative cooling at the surface and that this water can form more low level clouds trapping heat so that it causes yet more heating in the lower atmosphere. H2O does this by having a very high latent heat content and it requiring a lot of energy before it will radiate.

In practice this isn't a problem because most of the heat in the lower atmosphere is not carried via radiation but rather conduction. The transfer of energy from molecule to molecule by each mechanically bumping into another as they vibrate from the energy they are carrying. Conduction and radiation operate in 360 degrees but that which goes up is eventually lost to space via radiation.

CO2 has a lower latent heat content than other gases. This means that it takes LESS heat to cause a CO2 molecule to RADIATE. And again although this operates 360 degrees and radiates a large portion back towards the earth - that which is radiated into space is lost forever. Remember that CO2 is a minority gas and that ALL of the other gases operate in the same manner but require slightly higher amounts of heat to trigger radiation.
20-03-2017 19:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoon fed? You are the one that wants someone to find out if the DOE even has a position on the level of Man made CO2 for you.

If I wanted to find that out I would look it up at the source. not get it off some blog that will protect me from hearing stuff I don't want to hear.


No, Spot, I don't need it spoon fed to me . I would simply like to revisit the Man made vs natural CO2 discussion, but it will only get sidetracked if you don't like my sources. This seams to be a topic that your side would like to avoid at all costs. I actually understand Surface Details 30% percent argument from the 280 ppm baseline, but there are a lot of claims to the contrary. What is YOUR number and what is your source?

Oh, and I still haven't got an answer from anyone on why we can't seem to warm up even close to historical temp spike levels. Anyone?


Certainly we can use your sources, and then we can discuss what would win a space battle; an Imperial star destroyer or the Starship Enterprise. All the sources would be science fiction and one discussion would be be about as productive as the other.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
20-03-2017 19:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
spot wrote:
Certainly we can use your sources, and then we can discuss what would win a space battle; an Imperial star destroyer or the Starship Enterprise. All the sources would be science fiction and one discussion would be be about as productive as the other.


....and you avoid the topic once again.

Definitely the Star Destroyer.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
20-03-2017 19:36
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Wake wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.


Planck's law says that energy in equals energy out. So the feedback is ALWAYS negative. The more energy inserted, the more is released.

But with a catch - the mechanism in which the energy is both received and released can change so that the atmosphere in between can APPEAR to be a positive feedback mechanism.

For instance: There is a hypothesis that a warmer atmosphere will cause more evaporative cooling at the surface and that this water can form more low level clouds trapping heat so that it causes yet more heating in the lower atmosphere. H2O does this by having a very high latent heat content and it requiring a lot of energy before it will radiate.

In practice this isn't a problem because most of the heat in the lower atmosphere is not carried via radiation but rather conduction. The transfer of energy from molecule to molecule by each mechanically bumping into another as they vibrate from the energy they are carrying. Conduction and radiation operate in 360 degrees but that which goes up is eventually lost to space via radiation.

CO2 has a lower latent heat content than other gases. This means that it takes LESS heat to cause a CO2 molecule to RADIATE. And again although this operates 360 degrees and radiates a large portion back towards the earth - that which is radiated into space is lost forever. Remember that CO2 is a minority gas and that ALL of the other gases operate in the same manner but require slightly higher amounts of heat to trigger radiation.



And,I believe that there is a delta t in the radiation equation, so, since outer space is colder than the earth, more energy radiates to space than to the earth.
20-03-2017 19:41
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
The reason why CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to over 400 ppm since the industrial revolution is entirely due to mans influence, the bulk of that increase is due to fossil fuels but there is some evidence that land use changes and melting permafrost also have an impact.

As for the residence time of an individual molecule in the air that's a complex question and requires work on my part to find a sensible answer so I ask what do you expect to learn from me?

And a Star Destroyer is equipped with lasers so it wouldn't even penetrate the Enterprise's navigation shields.
20-03-2017 19:53
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)

The reason why CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to over 400 ppm since the industrial revolution is entirely due to mans influence, the bulk of that increase is due to fossil fuels but there is some evidence that land use changes and melting permafrost also have an impact.

The real question is just how much good will actually come from the increased CO2. CO2 is not pollution. Too many of us have allowed the warmies to create and dominate the narrative, therefore we hear CO2 and automatically think...oh crap that's bad. CO2 in fact has multiple life sustaining qualities. I'm not going to write a book here but google the benefits of increased CO2.

As for the residence time of an individual molecule in the air that's a complex question and requires work on my part to find a sensible answer so I ask what do you expect to learn from me?

Oh no no no!!! Do NOT ask Sput to look anything up!

And a Star Destroyer is equipped with lasers so it wouldn't even penetrate the Enterprise's navigation shields.

Starship Enterprise is outdated. Doesn't even have WiFi.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Edited on 20-03-2017 19:54
20-03-2017 20:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
The question is what is the total effects of a change is not just the good effects and ignoring the bad, that's dishonest. sure there seem to be a load of sites telling me how great CO2 is with pictures of trees but they all seem to be anti-environmentalist sites and not science sites like ;

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/294/MenuGroup/BenefitsToHumans.htm

And taking a pedagogical tone telling me that something is not a pollutant is not productive. I know it has an effect thank you and changing the legal definition of a substance in a different country for the convenience of the current Junta in that country won't change that.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
20-03-2017 20:52
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
spot wrote:
sure there seem to be a load of sites telling me how great CO2 is with pictures of trees but they all seem to be anti-environmentalist sites and not science sites like ;


Well I think your sites are agenda driven also. So, that's a stalemate. What does some common sense tell you?

CO2 is plant food.

More vegetation good or bad?

More vegetation feeds more humans(crops, vegetables etc.) and animals.

More humans eat more animals. Warmies will tell you co2 and warmer will cause food shortages. Laughable.

I love steak.

How is this bad?

Don't blow off about upsetting the balance. God forbid then no one should ever plant a flower or vegetable garden. The only thing constant about the history of our earth is that it is always changing. We are simply a blip in history and to think we can change the climate is arrogance on display.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
20-03-2017 20:55
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
By the way, you have avoided my question all day. Don't want to talk about it?

WHAT IS MAN CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL CO2 AND WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE?
20-03-2017 21:20
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century


source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
20-03-2017 21:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
sure there seem to be a load of sites telling me how great CO2 is with pictures of trees but they all seem to be anti-environmentalist sites and not science sites like ;


Well I think your sites are agenda driven also. So, that's a stalemate. What does some common sense tell you?

CO2 is plant food.

More vegetation good or bad?

More vegetation feeds more humans(crops, vegetables etc.) and animals.

More humans eat more animals. Warmies will tell you co2 and warmer will cause food shortages. Laughable.

I love steak.

How is this bad?

Don't blow off about upsetting the balance. God forbid then no one should ever plant a flower or vegetable garden. The only thing constant about the history of our earth is that it is always changing. We are simply a blip in history and to think we can change the climate is arrogance on display.


I try and use science websites who's agenda is science. For some breaking stories I use the media that breaks science news. your agenda seems to be to mislead.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
20-03-2017 21:24
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
The question is what is the total effects of a change is not just the good effects and ignoring the bad, that's dishonest. sure there seem to be a load of sites telling me how great CO2 is with pictures of trees but they all seem to be anti-environmentalist sites and not science sites like ;

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/294/MenuGroup/BenefitsToHumans.htm

And taking a pedagogical tone telling me that something is not a pollutant is not productive. I know it has an effect thank you and changing the legal definition of a substance in a different country for the convenience of the current Junta in that country won't change that.


I think that the increase in CO2 concentration cannot be totally due to man since evidently during the recovery from the last big ice age, the CO2 increased by itself.
20-03-2017 21:46
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Frescomexico wrote:the increase in CO2 concentration cannot be totally due to man since evidently during the recovery from the last big ice age, the CO2 increased by itself.

Recovery from the ice age took thousands of years. man-made C02 power-up took 200+ years. & that is why AGW is dangerous. It is much more rapid that "natural" climate change, which is NOT weather.
20-03-2017 21:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
spot wrote:
The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century


source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?


Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Attached image:

20-03-2017 22:12
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
litesong wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:the increase in CO2 concentration cannot be totally due to man since evidently during the recovery from the last big ice age, the CO2 increased by itself.

Recovery from the ice age took thousands of years. man-made C02 power-up took 200+ years. & that is why AGW is dangerous. It is much more rapid that "natural" climate change, which is NOT weather.


You talk as if the "man-made CO2 power-up" has already happened. It has barely begun and we are just guessing with models where it is going and if it is dangerous.
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Blockchain to help Liverpool become world's first climate-positive city001-08-2018 18:50
Arctic sea ice loss, negative or positive feedback?4609-08-2017 01:21
The most debated feedback / forcings?129-04-2017 03:37
Climate Effect of CO2 Alone Without Feedback.2512-03-2017 01:25
Positive effects of global warming3505-12-2014 13:26
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact