Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Exit positive feedback?

As the direct warming effect of CO2 greenhouse effect is rather marginal, (arguably beween 0.1 and 1.0 degrees C per doubling CO2), we invented the famous positive feedback, notably of the much stronger greenhouse effect of water vapor, snow albedo, and what not, to get it to the IPCC ~3 degrees per doubling CO2.

It's almost over

positive feedback, have we been fooling ourselves?



But then again, no positive feedback, we knew that already for years:

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf

Not much science left for anthropogenic global warming

edit, The author

Andre. I was reasonably convinced until I noticed in your link Roy spencer also accepts Intelligent Design. Hmmmm.

Isn't that curious. I'm telling everybody that water is boiling at 100 degrees celsius. But then somebody found out that I had a parking ticket the other week and whack it's not true anymore. Because of parking tickets water does not boil at 100 degrees celsius.

So, a legitimate point of credibility has been raised and your response, Andre, is to offer rebuke by way of a false analogy. Is it simply not possible to pursue the climate debate without going down this well trodden path?

The point is, redewenur, you are attacking the person not the science. Prove his science to be incorrect if you can. What his beliefs are in other areas of his life are immaterial.

You are mistaken, JMR. There is no 'attack' on anyone or anything. The person is entitled to hold his metaphysical beliefs; but you are also mistaken in assuming that it's necessarily immaterial. Such beliefs as those in question are well known to have a certain disregard for science, and thus they are in fact 'material'. This is not about 'other areas of life'. It's about the relevance to science. As it happens, the science in this case may prove to be good.

Did he mention intelligent design in his science? I read the link and did not see that anywhere. It comes back to the science. Unless you can prove that his science is wrong, then your attack on his credibility is without merit.

John Reynolds wrote:

"Did he mention intelligent design in his science?"

I'm not sure of the relevance of the link but from Andre's link, "The Author":

"On the subject of Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism".

Andre wrote:

"I'm telling everybody that water is boiling at 100 degrees celsius. But then somebody found out that I had a parking ticket the other week and whack it's not true anymore".

A parking ticket may not be enough to discredit your theory but if you were the only person who claimed water boiled at 100 degrees and you had a suspect past I'd certainly take a lot of convincing your claim might be true. As Redewenur suggests IDers have a track record of being able to selectively ignore a huge amount of evidence.

The track record for a group of people is irrelevant. You must prove that a huge, or any, amount of evidence was selectively ignored to even possibly show a correlation between his ID beliefs and the scientific work as shown in the link.

May I offer another analogy if the parking ticket is not well liked?

Nellie McClung - non-Canadians may not know of her, but she played a pivotal role in getting Canadian women the right to vote. She is seen as Canada's first feminist, and is rightfully held up as a Canadian that should be honoured (she's actually on our $50 bill).

Trouble is, she was also a ardent supporter of eugenics. In 1924, the "United Farm Women of Alberta", of which she was a dominant force, launched a support campaign for the implementation of a province wide sterilization plan. The plan first focused on the mentally ill, but was soon expanded to include those with epilepsy and syphilis. Almost 5000 people in Alberta alone were sterilized. McClung then moved to British Columbia, and helped BC develop similar legislation.

So, let me ask you, do you throw the baby out with the bath water? Nellie McClung championed both eugenics and women's rights. Because of her stance on eugenics, does that in itself call into question her stance on women's rights?

I say not at all. The world isn't black or white, there's many shades of grey.

Canuck, I agree with your argument for Nellie McGlung. It's still wide of the mark as an analogy however. We aren't talking generalisations. This is a specific instance about the possibility of an anti-scientific ideology being reflected in an individual's pursuit of a science.

However, I have to say I've had quite enough of this trivial debate about the gentleman's competence. Good luck to the man. Let's hope he proves worth his salt, (be it black, white or a shade of grey )

It is a trivial debate - true.......but it stemmed from the discussion on whether it was valid to attack the person, rather than the ideas. Which, in my opinion, happens far too often in any debate.

At any rate, I do think it is a valid analogy. We have a human rights champion (getting women the vote) supporting eugenics. Then we have a scientist supporting intelligent design.
There's some pretty strong parallels here. The irony in both is hilarious.

"The irony in both is hilarious."

- On that, at least, we can agree.

For sure..........but it doesn't mean that McClung or Spencer are (or were) wrong about everything

Please tell me how many Galileïs were required to figur out that the Earth was not the centre of the universe.

Moreover Christy is not the only one to find out that there is no positive feedback,

Furthermore: collectively ignored peer reviewed evidence:

http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf

but also:

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=10574&posts=13

Without positive feedback there is no way to boost the theoretically calculated one degree warming per doubling CO2 to the IPCC scary values of what? 3? 5? 7? degrees

Andre asked:

"Please tell me how many Galileïs were required to figur out that the Earth was not the centre of the universe".

You may not be aware of it but the answer is, "Quite a few". For a start Copernicus but Giordano Bruno also played a huge part. Bruno was executed in 1600 so his ideas were well circulated by the time Galileo came up with the proof. There were presumably others I'm not aware of. Isn't that what science is all about? Questions and answers that others can check?

As Rede says personal beliefs do not make one a good or bad scientist. I'm sure many Jehovah's witnesses are good scientists. Interpretaion is always based on personal beliefs but if one's personal beliefs colour the choice of evidence examined then it becomes a problem.

What is actually your point with this thread? Are you saying temperature has never varied through the history of the earth? Or simply that postive feedback has had no influence on climate fluctuations?

Andre, please don't leave "John Reynolds wrote:" in your quotes when you are not quoting the part that I indeed wrote.

And thanks for the science links.

Terry, your second question, from your last paragraph, is closer to the point of this thread.

Intelligent design? Sounds just like Al Gore when he says, and I quote...

"Now for me...this issue..is in a special category, because I believe so much is at stake. I don't want to proselytize, but my own religious faith has played a role in my strong feelings about this issue".

Don't take my word for it...See it for yourself at 12 minutes into his speech...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...h&plindex=2

"Please tell me how many Galileïs were required to figur out that the Earth was not the centre of the universe".

Here is a GREAT show for everyone. Please watch...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972