Comments on: GCCI Report #3: Warming and Feedback http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:38:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Hey Skipper http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5235 Hey Skipper Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:59:25 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5235 <i>... (due to albedo effects from increased cloud formation).</i> Probably more importantly, increased cloud formation also means increased convection. Which, in turn, pumps warm lower atmosphere air into the upper atmosphere, where the IR path to space is far shorter. (NB: one of the most important tools for weather observation is satellite borne IR sensors.) Thunderstorms and cyclones are giant heat engines that embody negative feedback. … (due to albedo effects from increased cloud formation).

Probably more importantly, increased cloud formation also means increased convection. Which, in turn, pumps warm lower atmosphere air into the upper atmosphere, where the IR path to space is far shorter. (NB: one of the most important tools for weather observation is satellite borne IR sensors.)

Thunderstorms and cyclones are giant heat engines that embody negative feedback.

]]> By: Highlander http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5173 Highlander Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:16:47 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5173 The remarks were: --------------- Hunter: “Interglacial John” - that’s pretty funny. Curious that you provide no link to anything that would back this claim. I bet the denialist retards will believe you though - they love anything that might make the greenhouse effect go away! June 18, 2009, 12:27 pm --------------- Funny thing, Hunter: The Martian atmosphere is almost completely CO2. . Now, once again: If CO2 is ~supposed~ to be a 'greenhouse gas,' then DO inform the rest of us precisely how it is that Mars isn't a warmer than Earth? . You'll do that, won't you? . The remarks were:
—————
Hunter:
“Interglacial John” – that’s pretty funny. Curious that you provide no link to anything that would back this claim. I bet the denialist retards will believe you though – they love anything that might make the greenhouse effect go away!

June 18, 2009, 12:27 pm
—————
Funny thing, Hunter: The Martian atmosphere is almost completely CO2.
.
Now, once again: If CO2 is ~supposed~ to be a ‘greenhouse gas,’ then DO inform the rest of us precisely how it is that Mars isn’t a warmer than Earth?
.
You’ll do that, won’t you?
.

]]> By: Highlander http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5171 Highlander Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:10:09 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5171 As always, one ~must~ remember: The effect can ~never~ overcome the cause. As always, one ~must~ remember: The effect can ~never~ overcome the cause.

]]> By: Hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5166 Hunter Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:27:32 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5166 "Interglacial John" - that's pretty funny. Curious that you provide no link to anything that would back this claim. I bet the denialist retards will believe you though - they love anything that might make the greenhouse effect go away! “Interglacial John” – that’s pretty funny. Curious that you provide no link to anything that would back this claim. I bet the denialist retards will believe you though – they love anything that might make the greenhouse effect go away!

]]> By: Interglacial John http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5162 Interglacial John Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:07:56 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5162 hunter - unfortunately for you the latest and most verifiable climate model shows water vapor acts as a cooling agent for our atmosphere ("our" meaning earth's - you seem to confuse easily). water vapor, in fact, counterbalances the warming effects of co2. you are referring to climate models and "observations" that have been roundly disproven, garbage in, garbage out. hunter – unfortunately for you the latest and most verifiable climate model shows water vapor acts as a cooling agent for our atmosphere (“our” meaning earth’s – you seem to confuse easily). water vapor, in fact, counterbalances the warming effects of co2. you are referring to climate models and “observations” that have been roundly disproven, garbage in, garbage out.

]]> By: Jeff11 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5157 Jeff11 Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:20:32 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5157 @Hunter... Finally, you post a bit of (almost) "science"... Shame it's all wrong. You really are a clown. @Hunter…

Finally, you post a bit of (almost) “science”…

Shame it’s all wrong. You really are a clown.

]]> By: Hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5150 Hunter Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:55:39 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5150 Yet again you fail to understand the difference between the USA and the world. You can't derive climate sensitivity from observations of the US alone. "the assumption that the climate system is dominated by net positive feedback" We <b>observe</b> that the climate system contains feedbacks. We <b>observe</b> that overall, these are positive. You're scientifically illiterate so you'll clearly never be able to understand that "dominated", which appears to be one of your favourite words, is completely, utterly meaningless in this context. "since most serious scientists will admit that we don’t even know the sign of the water vapor feedback loop" If by "we" you mean yourself, then that may be true. Scientists perfectly well know that water vapour feedback is strongly positive. Water vapour is, after all, a greenhouse gas, but then I know you have trouble with the concept of the greenhouse effect. You are desperately intellectually ill-equipped to understand this science. You fail at the most basic concepts, you show absolutely no evidence of any ability or willingness to learn, and worst of all is that you are apparently completely oblivious to how retarded you are. It's odd - while you can expect that a retard would not be able to understand how retarded they are, it is still very rare to see one publishing a blog that claims to be about science. Yet again you fail to understand the difference between the USA and the world. You can’t derive climate sensitivity from observations of the US alone.

“the assumption that the climate system is dominated by net positive feedback”

We observe that the climate system contains feedbacks. We observe that overall, these are positive. You’re scientifically illiterate so you’ll clearly never be able to understand that “dominated”, which appears to be one of your favourite words, is completely, utterly meaningless in this context.

“since most serious scientists will admit that we don’t even know the sign of the water vapor feedback loop”

If by “we” you mean yourself, then that may be true. Scientists perfectly well know that water vapour feedback is strongly positive. Water vapour is, after all, a greenhouse gas, but then I know you have trouble with the concept of the greenhouse effect.

You are desperately intellectually ill-equipped to understand this science. You fail at the most basic concepts, you show absolutely no evidence of any ability or willingness to learn, and worst of all is that you are apparently completely oblivious to how retarded you are. It’s odd – while you can expect that a retard would not be able to understand how retarded they are, it is still very rare to see one publishing a blog that claims to be about science.

]]> By: Michael http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5147 Michael Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:19:54 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5147 Has anyone asked what will the plants do? And I don't mean Al Gore. With even a small rise in temp, there would be more rainfall and deserts would shrink providing more land area for plant growth. With higher CO2 levels, higher temps and more rainfall, plants could grow at a faster rate than today. While I'm over simplifying matters here, there should be a change in plants metabolism with plants trying to draw down CO2 levels. Has anyone asked what will the plants do? And I don’t mean Al Gore. With even a small rise in temp, there would be more rainfall and deserts would shrink providing more land area for plant growth. With higher CO2 levels, higher temps and more rainfall, plants could grow at a faster rate than today. While I’m over simplifying matters here, there should be a change in plants metabolism with plants trying to draw down CO2 levels.

]]> By: mishu http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5134 mishu Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:49:20 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5134 Here's what's on page 17. "Because snow and ice reflect the Sun’s heat, this melting causes more heat to be absorbed, which causes more melting, resulting in another feedback loop." Here’s what’s on page 17.

“Because snow and ice reflect the Sun’s heat, this melting causes more heat
to be absorbed, which causes more melting, resulting
in another feedback loop.”

]]> By: Preston http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/06/gcci-report-3-warming-and-feedback.html/comment-page-1#comment-5133 Preston Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:22:21 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=1056#comment-5133 The quotes from P16 and P17 are the same - did you mean to include 2 different quotes? The quotes from P16 and P17 are the same – did you mean to include 2 different quotes?

]]>