North pole to melt this year?

Ag with kids,
please explain the magic that makes CO2 become a gas that doesn't trap heat in the climate equation?

And it sounds like now you're tacitly admitting that CO2 does effect the equation, but that we can count on a "reverse" effect to cool us? I'm REALLY curious how that's going to happen, especially as the methane levels from defrosting tundra starts ramping up.
 
is Lindzen big on clouds? I know Dr. Spencer is, but I didn't know Lindzen was. It seems that many of the skeptical scientists believe that CO2's effects are logarithmic and that the models are allowing for too great of a sensitivity. Quite a few of the skeptics I have read seem to believe that every doubling of C02 only raises the global temperature by 1 degree celsius. If this is true, we are still several decades away from even the 1st degree of temperature that can be rightly attributed to CO2. I think Skeptics have a much more holistic view of the climate system overall. It seems that AGW enthusiasts (for lack of a better word), are giving far too much power to CO2.
 
I guess I'll jump into this.

Ag, what is likely responsible for the historical CO2 fluctuations?

Knowing very little about this, I would guess with the historical models that the rise in temperature or other factors related to the increase in CO2 led to the negative feedback loop. If man is producing the increase in CO2, then the changes would not be subject to the same feedback loops. The release of CO2 will only increase over the next century unless there are significant worldwide policy changes.
 
It is far more likely that the historic initial rise was caused by the sun. CO2 represents a positive feedback. The negative "feedback" was also the sun.
 
Maybe God dials back the sun when he sees the CO2 getting up there? Like if you were cooking something and turn the burner down when it starts to simmer?

It seems like negative feedback are silly with the historical data then. The natural system is stable, but the changes in CO2 today are not natural. Even if there were negative feedback systems, they aren't going to stem the release of carbon by man. Unless that system is global policy; that might work.
 
Peaks and valleys show negative feedback?

You know that this is not necessarily true when there is a variable external stimulus (like the sun and planet's orbit), right?

What is your empirical proof for some paleo negative feedback?
 
We understand what positive and negative feedbacks are. There could be a net negative feedback in past temperature/CO2 changes and there could be a net positive feedback. We don't really know because the huge variable of the sun exists. You can't look at the historical data and say "Oh, well the temperature and CO2 eventually came back down, so there must be a negative feedback." Only if the external variables were constant could we determine the existence of a negative feedback loop with the system.

And I didn't intend to insult Christians. I am a Christian. I meant to insult anyone who proposes illogical solutions to problems.
 
Mojo, it's the year to year comparison that matters not across the year. That's what the graph showed. The ice extent will go up and down each year, but less up and more down as time goes by.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top