Does CO2 really drive global warming?

Seems you may have been listening to the Lindzen Illusions
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm

 

Bowerbird,

I would be interested in learnnig of your resopnse to these discussions. I included it in another thread, but I wanted to include it here as well in case you have not seen it before. Please do not consider this as spamming because it is not.

Very good, Windigo.

I can tell from your comments you have an excellent engineering background.

The "warmies" in this group know absolutely nothing about systems engineering and negative feedback loops.

The earth has always has a temperature control system that is self-regulating. This is why the global surface temperature returned to normal after the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.



When the earth warms and Arctic ice melts, much more water evaporates from the large surface of the Arctic Ocean. This added moisture produces lots of snowfall at the mid and lower latitudes. Snow and clouds have a very high Albedo (they reflect most the incident solar energy). This causes more solar energy to be returned to space, and the surface of the earth cools. These lower temperatures allow more ice to form in the Arctic which causes the snow at the mid and lower latitudes to stop. After the snow stops and melts and the cloud cover goes away, the earth warms again and the cycle repeats itself.

This is exactly how the earth corrects and self-regulates its surface temperature when its temperature becomes too high or too cold.

If the "warmies" understood systems engineering and negative feedback loops they would understand these rather simple concepts.

 

I don't blame you, windigo.

It is very disheartening to explain these fundamental science concepts to the "warmies" and not have them understand any of them.

By the way, I read this statement many years ago and I am pretty sure it is correct. When you have time, can you help me verify whether or not it is correct? If it is not correct, I need to modify it so it will be correct.

Thanks!

Here is the statement.


Here is the correct explanation you are looking for. It all has to do with nature's use of negative feedback loops. The feedback loop has to be negative. It cannot be positive. It it were positive, the total entropy of the system would decrease, and this is forbidded by the second law of Thermodynamics.

 

And that is the key statement: "over any long period of time". But the problem is that we are not dealing with a long period of time. No climate researcher or anyone here has ever maintained that the positive feedback happens over a long period of time. However, over a short period of time, say 200 to 300 years, there most certainly can be a positive feedback.
And the feedback does not have to be continuously positive or negative. The feedback can vary depending on conditions such as the amount of clouds, water vapor or ice.

 

Please include cited examples of "global warming" causes by positive feedback and include the durations these "positive feedbacks" have lasted.

Please provide relieable references for your conclusions.

Without reliable references these conclusions are merely "opinions on your part. "

You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

 

I am finished discussing anything with you until you learn to answer my questions and respond to my posts instead of ignoring what I state and deflecting.
Have a nice day.

 

That fine.

Admit you have absolutely no examples to offer our readers of any kind of "global warming" causes by positive feedback sources and you, like most “warmies”, simply make facts up because you believe they will support your political objectives.

 

"Green energy" programs are a complete waste of taxpayers’ money.

Solar collectors only work to produce electricity about 40% of the time. They don’t operate at night or during cloudy, overcast days. During these times, when they are idle, they must relay on conventional power systems (fossil fuels) to provide the electricity for residential and commercial use.

Same is true with wind turbines. They only work when the wind is blowing at least 25 mph and that is only about 40% of the time.

Nice try with your impractical “green energy” argument, but no cigar!

 

Please provide scientific examples of positive feedback that contribute to global warming.

Do you even know what a "positive feedback "is?

By the way, 200 to 300 years is indeed a long period of time when it comes to the rapid, short term excursions we have seen and continue to see in the earth's average global surface temperature.

 

Bill by TheTaoOfBill, I just like your post. One can be a math professor, but nothing stands up to the scientific method used by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. You have your own math. You have to divide by 100 and the overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees with you. If you had to divide by 10 or 1000 or 99 the overwhelming majority of the scientific community would still agree with you. Trolls rule PF.
I just like your post, it is true expression of all Obama supporters. I always tell to the other side - It is not about economy, stupid, it is not about gas prices, it is not about the cost of living, - but the other side cannot get it. It is about the attack and rise of nobodies, of no math, no ethics, no moral, no knowledge, no talent, no abilities, - but the other side cannot get it.

 

Come now, Mannie!

You of all people should know the quality of feedback makes all the difference in the world. Let's examine your knowledge about climate science.

Is water vapor in the atmosphere a positive feedback mechanism or is it a negative feedback mechanism? What are your scientific reasons for saying it is one or the other? (No guessing please!)

Thank you.