Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

Do you understand the difference between positive and negative feedback?

Why don't you explain it?

[saltydawg]

arkansasbob, remember you promised me that you would explain why a runaway greenhouse effect is possible here on Earth. Still waiting.

[arkansasbob]

arkansasbob, remember you promised me that you would explain why a runaway greenhouse effect is possible here on Earth. Still waiting.

quit waiting and start reading. plus, i don't remember making any promises.

i don't know how it could. i just know that i heard that phrase at least 10 times a week during the 90's and early 00's. i believe the idea was that we create a positive feedback loop where the co2 makes the atmosphere warmer, which melts the polar ice caps, which causes the earth to absorb more solar radiation (due to having less ice reflecting the light back into space), which causes global temperatures to rise, which melts more ice, etc.

this was the source of the original global warming greenhouse gas scare. alarmists have wisely shied away from this notion now that it appears negative feedback confounds the greenhouse effect, moderating temperatures.

if it has positive feedback, then it can run away. unless there is negative feedback to counterbalance it. there IS negative feedback to counterbalance it, which is why there is no reason to run around like chicken little claiming the sky is falling.

[saltydawg]

Why don't you explain it?

You say I suck at science. Why your hesitation?

[Guisslapp]

You say I suck at science. Why your hesitation?

Because I am working, and you could easily learn for yourself.

[Guisslapp]

Because I am working, and you could easily learn for yourself.

Start here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback

[saltydawg]

quit waiting and start reading. plus, i don't remember making any promises.


if it has positive feedback, then it can run away. unless there is negative feedback to counterbalance it. there IS negative feedback to counterbalance it, which is why there is no reason to run around like chicken little claiming the sky is falling.

You are the one that said that I should shut my mouth about a runaway greenhouse effect.

Anyway, go back and read my first post about this. It is correct. The runaway greenhouse effect can't happen here on Earth, not because of any negative or positive feedback, but because of the planet's distance from the Sun and the amount of water on the planet. The Earth is too far from the Sun to receive enough solar radiation to ensure that the atmosphere never becomes saturated with water vapor.

[randerizer]

Look at these numbers.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2005.ems

Houston, we have a problem.

And you are glossing over my argument, mr. gore.

[saltydawg]

And you are glossing over my argument, mr. gore.

Perhaps you should present your argument again. I understand your concerns about the ice cores possibly being unable of giving correct readings. But 27% of the co2 in the atmosphere today comes from human activities like burning fossil fuel and deforestation. WE know that by studying the amount of fossil fuels that have been burned during the last 150 years and the amount of land that has been deforested. Those results have been confirmed by isotope ratio between C12 and C13.

[randerizer]

Perhaps you should present your argument again. I understand your concerns about the ice cores possibly being unable of giving correct readings. But 27% of the co2 in the atmosphere today comes from human activities like burning fossil fuel and deforestation. WE know that by studying the amount of fossil fuels that have been burned during the last 150 years and the amount of land that has been deforested. Those results have been confirmed by isotope ratio between C12 and C13.

How does your carbon dating technique account for CO2 emissions associated with long-trapped CO2 that might not be the result of human emissions? All that carbon dating of atmospheric CO2 proves is that we are on an uptick in the carbon cycle... So, presumably CO2 sources that are cycled on much longer timescales are coming out.

Not a bit of your argument proves ANYTHING about human CO2 effects...

Try again.

My argument is: the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests that there is a significant carbon cycle, much more significant than let on by simple measurements from ice cores (although cycles are even clearly evident in that record). Presumably, there are significant geological causes of the carbon cycle, and we aren't even beginning to scratch the surface on what is involved in it (we certainly aren't doing anything to model our way to a correct "history match" that accounts for obvious cycles -- so I'd surmise that we are nowhere close to understanding the full science).

Cycles on the order of what I am imagining can come in one of two ways -- the processes can speed up, as in feedback mechanisms, or there can be processes that are simply on much longer timescales. I won't discredit the notion of feedback mechanisms, but I'm not sure that I buy that feedback mechanisms could account for the full extent of the cycle. My hypothesis would be that both long-timescale processes and feedback mechanisms account for a large sinusoidal behavior in the global CO2 cycle, with many shorter frequency minor highs and lows.

Long-timescale processes imply that CO2 is trapped for long times, which would be HIGHLY consistent with isotopic CO2 atmosphere data that would show a decrease in C-14, relative to total C, over time.

Without the ice core data, you are hosed... And all this crap about "those results are confirmed..." -- cut the crap. No REASONABLE scientist would claim confirmation of results without a WELL-CONTROLLED test.

[saltydawg]

How does your carbon dating technique account for CO2 emissions associated with long-trapped CO2 that might not be the result of human emissions? All that carbon dating of atmospheric CO2 proves is that we are on an uptick in the carbon cycle... So, presumably CO2 sources that are cycled on much longer timescales are coming out.

Not a bit of your argument proves ANYTHING about human CO2 effects...

Try again.

My argument is: the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests that there is a significant carbon cycle, much more significant than let on by simple measurements from ice cores (although cycles are even clearly evident in that record). Presumably, there are significant geological causes of the carbon cycle, and we aren't even beginning to scratch the surface on what is involved in it (we certainly aren't doing anything to model our way to a correct "history match" that accounts for obvious cycles -- so I'd surmise that we are nowhere close to understanding the full science).

Cycles on the order of what I am imagining can come in one of two ways -- the processes can speed up, as in feedback mechanisms, or there can be processes that are simply on much longer timescales. I won't discredit the notion of feedback mechanisms, but I'm not sure that I buy that feedback mechanisms could account for the full extent of the cycle. My hypothesis would be that both long-timescale processes and feedback mechanisms account for a large sinusoidal behavior in the global CO2 cycle, with many shorter frequency minor highs and lows.

Long-timescale processes imply that CO2 is trapped for long times, which would be HIGHLY consistent with isotopic CO2 atmosphere data that would show a decrease in C-14, relative to total C, over time.

Without the ice core data, you are hosed... And all this crap about "those results are confirmed..." -- cut the crap. No REASONABLE scientist would claim confirmation of results without a WELL-CONTROLLED test.

More of that mystery CO2 that chemical engineers are in love with. What's with you guys? Randerizer, all of the carbon sinks are gaining CO2, not losing. There is no mystery CO2 that's entering the atmosphere. The next time you start your car or turn on your house heater or use some petroleum based product, you have found the culprit for increasing atmospheric levels of CO2.

[arkansasbob]

You are the one that said that I should shut my mouth about a runaway greenhouse effect.

Anyway, go back and read my first post about this. It is correct. The runaway greenhouse effect can't happen here on Earth, not because of any negative or positive feedback, but because of the planet's distance from the Sun and the amount of water on the planet. The Earth is too far from the Sun to receive enough solar radiation to ensure that the atmosphere never becomes saturated with water vapor.

no, i said you should shut your mouth about water vapor and equillibrium.

[saltydawg]

no, i said you should shut your mouth about water vapor and equillibrium.

Whatever.

[randerizer]

More of that mystery CO2 that chemical engineers are in love with. What's with you guys? Randerizer, all of the carbon sinks are gaining CO2, not losing. There is no mystery CO2 that's entering the atmosphere. The next time you start your car or turn on your house heater or use some petroleum based product, you have found the culprit for increasing atmospheric levels of CO2.

Mystery -- not really. I just am a sucker for the scientific method... I see a set of data that is obviously not closed and question it, especially when the results of specific experiments (ice core data, for example) SUGGEST that there is a significant complication not correctly accounted for.

Salty, how can one legitimately argue that all carbon sinks are gaining CO2, if my argument is that the data suggests that we don't even have a clue about some significant CO2 levers.

[arkansasbob]

Whatever.

BTW, there will never be a "runaway" greenhouse effect here on Earth because the greenhouse effect is halted when water vapor is in equilibrium with ice or liquid water. There is probably some law out there that governs that relationship.

this, you obviously don't understand and would be wise to keep your mouth shut.

.