Don’t assume people are nutballs just because they question the current conventional wisdomWe don’t. We assume they’re nutballs because science has spent far more time than it really should patiently addressing all of their concerns, and discovered that they’re basically horseshit, and yet they still won’t shut up.
I don't assume insanity.
ReplyDeleteI assume malice.
Heinlein's Razor
ReplyDelete"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
Sean O'Coinin
Translation of what Eli is saying:
ReplyDeletethe 300% positive feedback fairy is absolutely real.
Negative feedbacks are as fictional as santa claus and are impossible.
Positive feedbacks well overwhelm the system and cause calamity.
well sorry but thousands of published scientists agree and disagree with you. There is no consensus on feedbacks.
"There is no consensus on feedbacks."
ReplyDeleteAll the more reason to apply the Precautionary Principle.
No consensus on feedbacks, eh? Funny then that about a dozen different types of data all give favored values for sensitivity of right around 3 degrees per doubling. I think nature disagrees with you
ReplyDeleteAs this bunny has pointed out more than often, if the water vapour feedback were anything less than what it is, about +100 %, we would have a bigger problem to worry about. if you thought global warming was bad, you ain't seen global drying... 6% for every warming degree you don't get
ReplyDelete> about +100 %
ReplyDeleteOops. I meant of course a feedback that approximately doubles sensitivity, which by the formula T = T0/(1-f) would be f = 50%. That way global overall relative humidity, and global precipitation figures, will stay the same. Which is what physics common sense tells us will happen, and what our stomach wants.
A further modest positive feedback (clouds) of 30% is needed to arrive at the accepted 3 degrees. The models produce that, though disagreeing on the precise amount.
OTOH Lindzen's proposed doubling sensitivity of 0.5 degree would need a negative feedback of a whopping -300%. Perhaps that was in the back of Anon's mind :-)
The problem with Lindzen's kind of feedback is that if it existed at the size proposed we wouldn't wonder if it existed. It would dominate the way have a grizzly bear at your dinner table would dominate.
ReplyDeleteNor would we see the kinds of temperature swings that we find in the geological record. Which is the standard response to the proposed Iris Effect. Why didn't it damp temperatures in the past? It seems awfully convenient for carbon plutocrats that Iris Effect has only decided to work for CO2 from human activity.