April 25, 2024
More on Climate Sensitivity
Timothy Birdnow
In a recent discussion on climate sensitivity Scott Snell answered my explanation of the crux of the argument.
Scott Snell says:
Numerous problems with the WV-feedback hypothesis. First of all, if that were accurate then EVERY warm spell that originated from ANY cause would trigger it, so planetary history would be littered with episodes of hyper-warming. But it isn't.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a permanent positive feedback. The short explanation for that statement is that it violates Le Chattelier's principle. The long version is that a universe with open-ended feedbacks would be too unstable to evolve beyond the most rudimentary state. Every system, if not perfectly balanced, would veer out of control toward a terminal positive or negative state.
Third, complex systems strive toward stability, thus have negative feedbacks built in. Of course there is an element of chicken-egg. Complex systems exist because of the universality of negative feedbacks.
The result of a little carbon-driven warming is easily visualized, thanks to history: A little extra warmth causes the atmosphere to churn a little faster, which causes a bit more evaporation and bit more cloud formation. More clouds means more incoming radiation bouncing back into space from the cloudtops. Problem solved.
Not worried about methane because it degrades in about five minutes to CO2. Even the largest pulse would fade quickly. A blip and nothing more. And it's not as though the permafrost hasn't warmed up before. How do you think all that organic matter came to be embedded in it? Nothing grows in permafrost, so the carbon is a remnant of buried organic matter from a warmer time when plants could actually grow.
Lyle Hancock Sr. replies:
An excellent post! You make the point in your reply to Timothy Birdnow's comment I've been stating for many years. A high climate sensitivity (or any other sensitivity) would be the product of an unstable system. The alarmists keep harping on a runaway heating scenario, a.k.a. the "tipping point."
The tipping point just does not exist. If it did, all life on this planet would have ended eons ago. A complex system, such as our climate system, always seeks equilibrium. As one forcing increases, other negative feedbacks increase to counter and maintain equilibrium.
Anyone who says there is a tipping point knows nothing about our climate system.
In a recent discussion on climate sensitivity Scott Snell answered my explanation of the crux of the argument.
Scott Snell says:
Numerous problems with the WV-feedback hypothesis. First of all, if that were accurate then EVERY warm spell that originated from ANY cause would trigger it, so planetary history would be littered with episodes of hyper-warming. But it isn't.
Secondly, there is no such thing as a permanent positive feedback. The short explanation for that statement is that it violates Le Chattelier's principle. The long version is that a universe with open-ended feedbacks would be too unstable to evolve beyond the most rudimentary state. Every system, if not perfectly balanced, would veer out of control toward a terminal positive or negative state.
Third, complex systems strive toward stability, thus have negative feedbacks built in. Of course there is an element of chicken-egg. Complex systems exist because of the universality of negative feedbacks.
The result of a little carbon-driven warming is easily visualized, thanks to history: A little extra warmth causes the atmosphere to churn a little faster, which causes a bit more evaporation and bit more cloud formation. More clouds means more incoming radiation bouncing back into space from the cloudtops. Problem solved.
Not worried about methane because it degrades in about five minutes to CO2. Even the largest pulse would fade quickly. A blip and nothing more. And it's not as though the permafrost hasn't warmed up before. How do you think all that organic matter came to be embedded in it? Nothing grows in permafrost, so the carbon is a remnant of buried organic matter from a warmer time when plants could actually grow.
Lyle Hancock Sr. replies:
An excellent post! You make the point in your reply to Timothy Birdnow's comment I've been stating for many years. A high climate sensitivity (or any other sensitivity) would be the product of an unstable system. The alarmists keep harping on a runaway heating scenario, a.k.a. the "tipping point."
The tipping point just does not exist. If it did, all life on this planet would have ended eons ago. A complex system, such as our climate system, always seeks equilibrium. As one forcing increases, other negative feedbacks increase to counter and maintain equilibrium.
Anyone who says there is a tipping point knows nothing about our climate system.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
09:16 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 3 kb.
1
I think when they talk about a "tipping point," they're really referring to Rep. Hank Johnson talking about Guam and what might happen if we send too many fighter planes there.
Either one of the arguments makes about the same amount of sense, which is zero.
Either one of the arguments makes about the same amount of sense, which is zero.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at April 27, 2024 10:47 PM (7Hd0c)
23kb generated in CPU 0.0077, elapsed 0.2217 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2153 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2153 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
