sunsettommy

The problem is that POSITIVE feedbacks have not gone beyond modeling stage.While NEGATIVE feedbacks are observed reality using Satellite data. I have already posted 3 links showing the reality of Negative feedbacks. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere? It is presently near historic lows of the past 500 million years. Tropical climate is actually similar to what it was during the warmest times in Earth history.It is the other regions that have large temperature changes: CHART Mesozoic is a very warm climate epoch.Often 8-12 C,warmer than today.

Do you know what the positive feedback hypothesis is based on?

Try DR. Roy Spenser.Who has published science papers on feedbacks. He posted it at his website too.Here are several links for you to ponder over.All from his website: Strong Negative Feedback from the Latest CERES Radiation Budget Measurements Over the Global Oceans Some Comments on the Lindzen and Choi (2009) Feedback Study UPDATE: Further Evidence of Low Climate Sensitivity from NASA’s Aqua Satellite

I have known about that for years.But do YOU know why it is misleading? It has to do with the frequency bands Methane has in the IR spectral window.I have already showed you what it is.

Yes. If you are familiar with the Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW)hypothesis.You would know that they believe that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere would promote warming.But actually by itself it is only a slight warming of no more than about 1 degree F.It is the idea that positive feedbacks are increasing in reaction to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.To create that big warming trend they are wailing about. HERE is a chart showing the logarithmic curve of CO2 warming effect.It is very small after the first 50 ppm. The problem is that there has been empirical evidence only for NEGATIVE feedbacks in operation in the climate system.Positive feedbacks exists only in climate models.

Mike,Carbon is not the same as Carbon Dioxide. Carbon is an element.Does not absorb IR at all. CO2 is a molecular gas in the atmosphere.It absorbs some of the IR. It is plain that you are very confused.

Just a few gases absorb IR.CO2,Water Vapor and Methane are three of the biggest ones. Here is a chart that shows how little CO2 absorbs IR: HERE and, HERE These charts from my forum shows how minor CO2 is as a IR absorber.Only about 6% of OUTGOING IR are absorbed by the few CO2 molecules that are available in the atmosphere.It is a trace gas and near historic lows in today's atmosphere.Not much above starvation levels for the green plants to live on. Methane barely absorbs any IR at all.Since they have minimal band absorptive capability.All that talk about how much more Methane can absorb IR over CO2 (25 times more) is misleading and propagandist. HERE Carbon does NOT absorb Infrared Radiation.

??? You mean Carbon Dioxide and Infrared Radiation?

Huh?

Keepitsimple made a point that you fail to realize. The very fact that warming trends in the first 50 years is very similar to the last 50 years.Does great damage to the AGW hypothesis.Since it is shown here that the first 50 years of warming is not effected by the slow increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

LINK This is the Unadjusted version.

That is about right.

bloodyminded: Yes because they are supporters.They are the main bringer of heavily edited news reporting. The Environmentalists enjoy large yearly donations from large Capitalist corporations.Despite that those same Eco-nuts are ardent supporters of socialism.They fight against many Capitalist corporations endeavors in several fields. Then we have CNN CBS NBC ABC,who are ardently liberal.But Foxnews is mildly conservative.Yet it is Firefox who gets slammed by the MSM and even the White House.

Carl Sagan was a die hard liberal.But as a scientist he was terrible.Where there is smoke,there is Carl. Many Universities are leftists bastions.Because that is the way to propagandize the still malleable minds of the young.They have to because that is an arena with little opposition.They also control the tenure process,thus deliberately selecting like minded people. Someday you will realize that most of the demonizing that goes on are mostly from the Liberal side.

LOL, The major liberal bastions use fear everyday. Environmentalists are mostly liberal.They use fear mongering everyday.They preach all kinds of doomsday bullcrap,unless the rest of us give them what they want. Mainstream Media are mostly Liberal.They use propagandizing fear mongering everyday.They advance socialism through fear and intimidation. Democrat leftists use fear mongering regularly.Witness the statements they make every time Republicans want to make budget cuts. We also have leftist scientists using fear and intimidation.They make threats on freedom and even life.Unless the skeptics back off from wanting to discuss the science.Right now DR.Mann is suing Dr. Ball for Libel he did not commit.It is to sow fear and intimidation.Dr.Mann is getting a lot of support from David Suzuki and other anti freedom environmentalist organizations. I was once a liberal,but got tired of the lies and fear they continually sow.Plus they are not respectful of the American Constitution.

Yeah they will murder a number of people over something that was said against Muslim beliefs,a few thousand miles away from where they live. Sounds like savages to me.

One book burned = 14 people killed. Maybe if we burned 1000 of the books,would that kill 14,000 people? I consider murdering Muslims barbarians of the lowest level.

Yeah it is obvious that YOU can not articulate a point.

Long ago,I stopped watching people like Beck,Stewart,Letterman,Franken,Limbaugh,O'Donnell,Winfrey,Gore and other half intelligent people. They have no skill in coherent rational communication.They really do NOT know how to think rationally. All of them are highly partisan.Thus muting the possibility that they consider reality in full visibility.

I take it then,that you have no answer for my point made at post #147.

That is cute. Global Warming is real in the long term.But a natural one since it is a rebound from the LIA epoch. It is the absurd idea that an increasing trace "greenhouse" gas in the atmosphere can compel a run away warming trend.It is called the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (AGW). WE are on the edge of the end of the interglacial period.That is scary and yet many people are afraid of a slow warming trend.Because they have been conditioned to fear the warming by the media and dishonest environmentalist organizations. It is good to be skeptical.

We do not buy oil from Libya. Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries I fail to understand the point of your post.

I showed why Oleg was wrong.By showing ALL three warming trends,that have occurred since 1860.He had claimed that we have caused an "unatural" warming trend.The three warming trends are quite similar. It is warming since the 1850's to now.That is because we have been climbing out of the LIA epoch.

Your ignorance is vivid.The source I used is valid and uses only published temperature data. Plus you mispelled a few words. He he.

That is nice. But you failed to understand what my point was at post # 147. Want to try again?