Feed back loops have been disproven ..oh really ..actually they are being studied in depth only recently ....and are proving to be quite real ...and possibily occur quite faster than first realized.But if you listen to the likes of this Lord Monckton (lied about his credentials and is a payed mouth piece for climate denial) I can see where you get that notion from.Am not out to argue with you deniers as it is pointless.But at what point will you admit to some human caused climate change.
Feedbacks, and the whole concept of feedbacks, has been proved irrelevent, to natural climate change, and even in the preposterous theory of "Man-made global Warming", the Lord Christopher Monckton has written a peer-reviewed paper on it. These climate propagandist-confusers are laughable.
@herculese220 Christopher Monckton has never written a peer-reviewed paper on anything. If you are referring to his "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" paper, that was published in the Bulletin of the American Physical Society, a non-peer-reviewed newsletter of sorts. It was also promptly ripped apart by RealClimate as soon as it was published. If he had submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal, the mistakes would have been spotted and the paper rejected.
@DeadlyV1RU5 blah blah blah.... It's all Baloney, it's to confuse the Issue. Man-made global warming, is a political-agenda, to take over the global economy with the United Nations.
@herculese220 You don't really believe that pseuod-science and 4th hand rubbish you read on web-sites do you? Not sure if you're joking or just complacent to the point of absurdity...
@DaveG37 The 'Psuedo-science' is Ecology, and more narrowly, Anthropogenic Global Warming. I only believe real scientists, with small bank accounts, and no connections to the Crazy-Lefty-Elitist-Foundations, who have been spouting off that "man is the enemy of the planet", ever since the scientificly ridiculed Paul Ehrlich started writing books about Nazi-style mandatory sterilization and various other eugenics techniques in the 70's.
if every single human over the last 120 yrs exhales, with every breathe approx 57,000ppm of co2, as well as volcanic & natural venting, every animal and insect ,car train plane, factory ,industry, everything produced for every human, war manufacturing drives ww1 & ww2 ect....everything co2 related, to the 120 yrs,
if as is stated 50% stays in the atmosphere, how come the atmospheric rise only amounts to 89ppm?
with water vapour being 99% of the atmospheres content, and the trace element of co2 totalling approx 0.0389 %, the rise of 0.0089% over 120 yrs of everything is minute.
if THEN we have to divide the 0.0089% rise of co2, and sub-category this into year produced, and its Anthropogenic element isotopes of c13 - c14 ratios,
we're talking 1% of the 0.0089ppm rise, being divided over 120 yrs , into not ppm (parts per millionths) but parts per trillionths of that 1%, to prove its man made
@DaveG37 Hahaha, "send it to the MetOffice" Do you mean the Met Office London, the same organisation that got ridiculed in the Broadsheets earlier last year for CONSISTANTLY and INCORRECTLY predicting for the last NINE years in a row, "this year will be the hottest ever", when every one of those years has been proved to have been progressively cooler. That is from an Ipcc report.
if every single human over the last 120 yrs exhales, with every breathe approx 57,000ppm of co2, as well as volcanic & natural venting, every animal and insect ,car train plane, factory ,industry, everything produced for every human, war manufacturing drives ww1 & ww2 ect....everything co2 related, to the 120 yrs,
if as is stated 50% stays in the atmosphere, how come the atmospheric rise only amounts to 89ppm?
Lol..."on a cloudy day you get less light that comes down to the surface and this will tend to cool the surface"...I think he has confused heat with light...
I wonder why he spends most of his time alarming us with positive feedback....curious..
@coltrane1966 But thats total nonsense- do surely don't believe that nonsense do you? See IPCC Working group 1 report- physical science- to easily refute what you are saying...
@DaveG37 The Ipcc has been ridiculed by their own "data" collection methods, and peer review process, all the e-mails from climate-gate were admitted in the enquiry, which was a white-wash anyway.
In my opinion, the feedbacks don't really impact temperature because since CO2 was 280ppm, until now at 380ppm there has been only a small increase in temperature - about 1.2 Celcius.
Only? Only a few degrees separate a glacial from an interglacial with the huge changes in sea level implied. So 1.2 degrees is lots. And its on the way up probably. Fancy buying a water front home bruno?
Feed back loops have been disproven ..oh really ..actually they are being studied in depth only recently ....and are proving to be quite real ...and possibily occur quite faster than first realized.But if you listen to the likes of this Lord Monckton (lied about his credentials and is a payed mouth piece for climate denial) I can see where you get that notion from.Am not out to argue with you deniers as it is pointless.But at what point will you admit to some human caused climate change.
copycoonie 5 months ago
Feedbacks, and the whole concept of feedbacks, has been proved irrelevent, to natural climate change, and even in the preposterous theory of "Man-made global Warming", the Lord Christopher Monckton has written a peer-reviewed paper on it. These climate propagandist-confusers are laughable.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 Christopher Monckton has never written a peer-reviewed paper on anything. If you are referring to his "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" paper, that was published in the Bulletin of the American Physical Society, a non-peer-reviewed newsletter of sorts. It was also promptly ripped apart by RealClimate as soon as it was published. If he had submitted it to a peer-reviewed journal, the mistakes would have been spotted and the paper rejected.
DeadlyV1RU5 1 year ago
@DeadlyV1RU5 blah blah blah.... It's all Baloney, it's to confuse the Issue. Man-made global warming, is a political-agenda, to take over the global economy with the United Nations.
herculese220 1 year ago
@herculese220 You don't really believe that pseuod-science and 4th hand rubbish you read on web-sites do you? Not sure if you're joking or just complacent to the point of absurdity...
DaveG37 1 year ago
@DaveG37 The 'Psuedo-science' is Ecology, and more narrowly, Anthropogenic Global Warming. I only believe real scientists, with small bank accounts, and no connections to the Crazy-Lefty-Elitist-Foundations, who have been spouting off that "man is the enemy of the planet", ever since the scientificly ridiculed Paul Ehrlich started writing books about Nazi-style mandatory sterilization and various other eugenics techniques in the 70's.
herculese220 1 year ago
ROFL at all these people sitting on the Internet telling an experienced climatologist why he's got it wrong. Unbelievable arrogance.
DeadlyV1RU5 1 year ago
if every single human over the last 120 yrs exhales, with every breathe approx 57,000ppm of co2, as well as volcanic & natural venting, every animal and insect ,car train plane, factory ,industry, everything produced for every human, war manufacturing drives ww1 & ww2 ect....everything co2 related, to the 120 yrs,
if as is stated 50% stays in the atmosphere, how come the atmospheric rise only amounts to 89ppm?
erHotWAXX2 1 year ago
with water vapour being 99% of the atmospheres content, and the trace element of co2 totalling approx 0.0389 %, the rise of 0.0089% over 120 yrs of everything is minute.
if THEN we have to divide the 0.0089% rise of co2, and sub-category this into year produced, and its Anthropogenic element isotopes of c13 - c14 ratios,
we're talking 1% of the 0.0089ppm rise, being divided over 120 yrs , into not ppm (parts per millionths) but parts per trillionths of that 1%, to prove its man made
erHotWAXX2 1 year ago
@erHotWAXX2 Um do you think your diddy chemistry will stand up to scrutiny? if so, send it to the MetOffice and let them correct you...
DaveG37 1 year ago
@DaveG37 Hahaha, "send it to the MetOffice" Do you mean the Met Office London, the same organisation that got ridiculed in the Broadsheets earlier last year for CONSISTANTLY and INCORRECTLY predicting for the last NINE years in a row, "this year will be the hottest ever", when every one of those years has been proved to have been progressively cooler. That is from an Ipcc report.
herculese220 1 year ago
if every single human over the last 120 yrs exhales, with every breathe approx 57,000ppm of co2, as well as volcanic & natural venting, every animal and insect ,car train plane, factory ,industry, everything produced for every human, war manufacturing drives ww1 & ww2 ect....everything co2 related, to the 120 yrs,
if as is stated 50% stays in the atmosphere, how come the atmospheric rise only amounts to 89ppm?
erHotWAXX2 1 year ago
Comment removed
erHotWAXX2 1 year ago
Lol..."on a cloudy day you get less light that comes down to the surface and this will tend to cool the surface"...I think he has confused heat with light...
I wonder why he spends most of his time alarming us with positive feedback....curious..
Dave26851 2 years ago
He didn't mention Sun activity, cosmic rays, or the 'arms' not even that the Globe has been warming since preindustrial times and is now cooling.
Plus they also tell their computers what answer to come up with.
coltrane1966 2 years ago
@coltrane1966 But thats total nonsense- do surely don't believe that nonsense do you? See IPCC Working group 1 report- physical science- to easily refute what you are saying...
DaveG37 1 year ago
@DaveG37 The Ipcc has been ridiculed by their own "data" collection methods, and peer review process, all the e-mails from climate-gate were admitted in the enquiry, which was a white-wash anyway.
herculese220 1 year ago
Yay Ben! That was really interesting and well structured. Thanks!
globalfish100 2 years ago
In my opinion, the feedbacks don't really impact temperature because since CO2 was 280ppm, until now at 380ppm there has been only a small increase in temperature - about 1.2 Celcius.
bruno1968 2 years ago
@bruno1968
'Only about 1.2 celcius says bruno'
Only? Only a few degrees separate a glacial from an interglacial with the huge changes in sea level implied. So 1.2 degrees is lots. And its on the way up probably. Fancy buying a water front home bruno?
b789eacon 2 years ago
Go Ben!
Hanjoslava 2 years ago