Comments on: The Catastrophe Comes from Feedback http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Peter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-984 Peter Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:52:15 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-984 <p>So, if I understand the positive-feedback effect correctly, CO2 warms the atmosphere, which in turn makes it able to hold more water vapor which, being a potent greenhouse gas, gives rise to even more warming - until the saturation point is reached and it rains out, cooling things down (or words to that effect)</p> <p>Two problems here:</p> <p>1) Except in places where it's too cold or dry, the water vapor already exists in the atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor alone warms the atmosphere, which in turn leads to more water vapor and so on. Why does this not happen? Why does this process have to wait for CO2 to come along to start the 'snowball rolling'?</p> <p>2) As the greenhouse effect of water vapor is much greater than that of CO2, the atmosphere will warm more from water vapor than it would from CO2. How then, given the fact of the second law of thermodynamics, can CO2 have any warming effect whatsoever?</p> <p>Speaking of the second law of thermodynamics, if IR radiation from the surface warms the atmosphere by way of the greenhouse effect, how then does the atmosphere warm the surface - given that the atmosphere cannot be warmed to a higher temperature than the surface?</p> <p>Scientist, can you please answer these questions</p> So, if I understand the positive-feedback effect correctly, CO2 warms the atmosphere, which in turn makes it able to hold more water vapor which, being a potent greenhouse gas, gives rise to even more warming – until the saturation point is reached and it rains out, cooling things down (or words to that effect)

Two problems here:

1) Except in places where it’s too cold or dry, the water vapor already exists in the atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor alone warms the atmosphere, which in turn leads to more water vapor and so on. Why does this not happen? Why does this process have to wait for CO2 to come along to start the ‘snowball rolling’?

2) As the greenhouse effect of water vapor is much greater than that of CO2, the atmosphere will warm more from water vapor than it would from CO2. How then, given the fact of the second law of thermodynamics, can CO2 have any warming effect whatsoever?

Speaking of the second law of thermodynamics, if IR radiation from the surface warms the atmosphere by way of the greenhouse effect, how then does the atmosphere warm the surface – given that the atmosphere cannot be warmed to a higher temperature than the surface?

Scientist, can you please answer these questions

]]> By: Peter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-983 Peter Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:52:06 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-983 <p>So, if I understand the positive-feedback effect correctly, CO2 warms the atmosphere, which in turn makes it able to hold more water vapor which, being a potent greenhouse gas, gives rise to even more warming - until the saturation point is reached and it rains out, cooling things down (or words to that effect)</p> <p>Two problems here:</p> <p>1) Except in places where it's too cold or dry, the water vapor already exists in the atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor alone warms the atmosphere, which in turn leads to more water vapor and so on. Why does this not happen? Why does this process have to wait for CO2 to come along to start the 'snowball rolling'?</p> <p>2) As the greenhouse effect of water vapor is much greater than that of CO2, the atmosphere will warm more from water vapor than it would from CO2. How then, given the fact of the second law of thermodynamics, can CO2 have any warming effect whatsoever?</p> <p>Speaking of the second law of thermodynamics, if IR radiation from the surface warms the atmosphere by way of the greenhouse effect, how then does the atmosphere warm the surface - given that the atmosphere cannot be warmed to a higher temperature than the surface?</p> <p>Scientist, can you please answer these questions</p> So, if I understand the positive-feedback effect correctly, CO2 warms the atmosphere, which in turn makes it able to hold more water vapor which, being a potent greenhouse gas, gives rise to even more warming – until the saturation point is reached and it rains out, cooling things down (or words to that effect)

Two problems here:

1) Except in places where it’s too cold or dry, the water vapor already exists in the atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor alone warms the atmosphere, which in turn leads to more water vapor and so on. Why does this not happen? Why does this process have to wait for CO2 to come along to start the ‘snowball rolling’?

2) As the greenhouse effect of water vapor is much greater than that of CO2, the atmosphere will warm more from water vapor than it would from CO2. How then, given the fact of the second law of thermodynamics, can CO2 have any warming effect whatsoever?

Speaking of the second law of thermodynamics, if IR radiation from the surface warms the atmosphere by way of the greenhouse effect, how then does the atmosphere warm the surface – given that the atmosphere cannot be warmed to a higher temperature than the surface?

Scientist, can you please answer these questions

]]> By: Peter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-982 Peter Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:51:40 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-982 <p>So, if I understand the positive-feedback effect correctly, CO2 warms the atmosphere, which in turn makes it able to hold more water vapor which, being a potent greenhouse gas, gives rise to even more warming - until the saturation point is reached and it rains out, cooling things down (or words to that effect)</p> <p>Two problems here:</p> <p>1) Except in places where it's too cold or dry, the water vapor already exists in the atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor alone warms the atmosphere, which in turn leads to more water vapor and so on. Why does this not happen? Why does this process have to wait for CO2 to come along to start the 'snowball rolling'?</p> <p>2) As the greenhouse effect of water vapor is much greater than that of CO2, the atmosphere will warm more from water vapor than it would from CO2. How then, given the fact of the second law of thermodynamics, can CO2 have any warming effect whatsoever?</p> <p>Speaking of the second law of thermodynamics, if IR radiation from the surface warms the atmosphere by way of the greenhouse effect, how then does the atmosphere warm the surface - given that the atmosphere cannot be warmed to a higher temperature than the surface?</p> <p>Scientist, can you please answer these questions</p> So, if I understand the positive-feedback effect correctly, CO2 warms the atmosphere, which in turn makes it able to hold more water vapor which, being a potent greenhouse gas, gives rise to even more warming – until the saturation point is reached and it rains out, cooling things down (or words to that effect)

Two problems here:

1) Except in places where it’s too cold or dry, the water vapor already exists in the atmosphere, and the greenhouse effect of the water vapor alone warms the atmosphere, which in turn leads to more water vapor and so on. Why does this not happen? Why does this process have to wait for CO2 to come along to start the ‘snowball rolling’?

2) As the greenhouse effect of water vapor is much greater than that of CO2, the atmosphere will warm more from water vapor than it would from CO2. How then, given the fact of the second law of thermodynamics, can CO2 have any warming effect whatsoever?

Speaking of the second law of thermodynamics, if IR radiation from the surface warms the atmosphere by way of the greenhouse effect, how then does the atmosphere warm the surface – given that the atmosphere cannot be warmed to a higher temperature than the surface?

Scientist, can you please answer these questions

]]> By: TCO http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-981 TCO Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:24:59 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-981 <p>You've been schooled on amplification before. You insist on repeating sound bites without addressing things with deeper understanding. Are you a hack? A moron? </p> You’ve been schooled on amplification before. You insist on repeating sound bites without addressing things with deeper understanding. Are you a hack? A moron?

]]> By: Bill Bodell http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-980 Bill Bodell Tue, 18 Mar 2008 19:13:19 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-980 <p>Scientist,</p> <p>It's time for you to start doing something more useful with your time.</p> <p>You certainly weren't convincing any skeptics and, now that Stevo has chewed you up and spit you out, you aren't going to convince any undecided lurkers either. In fact, you're hurting your cause. Personally, as a skeptic, the more posters there are like you, the better we look.<br /> </p> Scientist,

It’s time for you to start doing something more useful with your time.

You certainly weren’t convincing any skeptics and, now that Stevo has chewed you up and spit you out, you aren’t going to convince any undecided lurkers either. In fact, you’re hurting your cause. Personally, as a skeptic, the more posters there are like you, the better we look.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-979 Jeff Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:26:11 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-979 <p>"Scientist"...? "Social" or "Christian"? <br /> </p> “Scientist”…? “Social” or “Christian”?

]]> By: Papertiger http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-978 Papertiger Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:37:13 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-978 <p>You ever hear of someone getting a nasty <i>cloud burn</i>?</p> <p>Scientist my ass. What you are is a koolaid guzzling moron.</p> You ever hear of someone getting a nasty cloud burn?

Scientist my ass. What you are is a koolaid guzzling moron.

]]> By: dreamin http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-977 dreamin Tue, 18 Mar 2008 14:08:00 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-977 <p>"if there was any evidence of anyone here being willing to learn, I'd keep on trying to explain."</p> <p>In that case, why do you continue to post here?</p> <p>Looks to me like you are making excuses for being unable to back up your claims or respond to challenging questions.</p> <p><br /> </p> “if there was any evidence of anyone here being willing to learn, I’d keep on trying to explain.”

In that case, why do you continue to post here?

Looks to me like you are making excuses for being unable to back up your claims or respond to challenging questions.

]]> By: Papertiger http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-976 Papertiger Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:30:35 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-976 <p>Well sure there are positive feedbacks for the climate system. We use them all the time.<br /> For example who hasn't felt the blast of hot air after switching on their EVAPORATIVE HEATER?<br /> That's a firm scientific principle well understood and used in many household applications.<br /> So let me list some of the modern marvels based on the science of positive climate feedback.<br /> ...<br /> um...<br /> Well there's...<br /> Shit.<br /> I got nothing.</p> Well sure there are positive feedbacks for the climate system. We use them all the time.
For example who hasn’t felt the blast of hot air after switching on their EVAPORATIVE HEATER?
That’s a firm scientific principle well understood and used in many household applications.
So let me list some of the modern marvels based on the science of positive climate feedback.
…
um…
Well there’s…
Shit.
I got nothing.

]]> By: Scientist http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html/comment-page-1#comment-975 Scientist Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:33:49 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/03/the-catastrophe.html#comment-975 <p>Stevo - if there was any evidence of anyone here being willing to learn, I'd keep on trying to explain. But people are obviously very happy to be ignorant. They've decided beforehand what they want to believe, and they're not going to listen to any real science. Anyone who talks of 'sides' and 'the skeptic cause' is clearly someone talking from a position of faith, not science. Any explanation of science, no matter how kindly worded, only garners abuse from them.</p> <p><i>It helps, even if only to the extent that we don't use that particular argument again</i> - yeah, I wish! The same arguments are coming out time and time again. The author of this blog has twice, that I can find, said that the name of Greenland implies that mediaeval times were warmer than now. Both times, someone has corrected him. Did he take that in? And time and time again people are coming up with the nonsensical idea that there can't be positive feedbacks because if there were, "we just wouldn't be here". I think you probably understand that that's ridiculous, so why don't you try telling them?</p> Stevo – if there was any evidence of anyone here being willing to learn, I’d keep on trying to explain. But people are obviously very happy to be ignorant. They’ve decided beforehand what they want to believe, and they’re not going to listen to any real science. Anyone who talks of ‘sides’ and ‘the skeptic cause’ is clearly someone talking from a position of faith, not science. Any explanation of science, no matter how kindly worded, only garners abuse from them.

It helps, even if only to the extent that we don’t use that particular argument again – yeah, I wish! The same arguments are coming out time and time again. The author of this blog has twice, that I can find, said that the name of Greenland implies that mediaeval times were warmer than now. Both times, someone has corrected him. Did he take that in? And time and time again people are coming up with the nonsensical idea that there can’t be positive feedbacks because if there were, “we just wouldn’t be here”. I think you probably understand that that’s ridiculous, so why don’t you try telling them?

]]>