Quote:
|
Originally Posted by cbacba
windg,
GHG's are just a trigger, and even most GW scientists accept that as the case (Cbacba's CO2 doubling and quadrupling is partially correct, just not the current figures he's hawking). What Cbacba totally ignores is what even slight increases in heat can and will do to the planet setting off nearly unstoppable chain/compensatory/equilibrium reactions where the planet will not find a stable "lacking major changes" climate for another five hundred years. Then we'll be either be seven to sixty metres underwater or having the worst ice age "total ice over" (500 year predictions).
Sorry but it's what the numbers show. As for your magical mystery positive feedbacks, they're not science. What's more, net positive feedbacks don't exist in stable systems. There is evidence to suggest that there are serious negative feedbacks. What's more, it would seem that the most substantial feedback (clouds) can be spoofed somewhat by large ice sheets at relatively lower lattitudes to create a cold relatively stable operating point.
Were positive feedbacks dominant, the first pertubation, like a sunspot cycle or the earth's aphelion or perihelion would change conditions which would then cause this feedback to exert itself, pushing the system all the way to the next stable condition - assuming one exists.
To claim that there's one just right outside the door (like a wolf or the boogeyman) is to buy into the claims that the temperature has never been this hot or that it never changed before. It's akin to a 'flat earther' believing that if columbus had really made the trip to the new world, he'd fallen off the edge of the earth and so must've been lying.
|
It is the speed of the change that is the real player not just fact that the planet is heating up.
Prove cloud cover increases wth temperature increases, if you believe it is a positive feedback that helps annull GW.