Comments on: Diminishing Return http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/06/diminishing-ret.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:42:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Steven Borg http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/06/diminishing-ret.html/comment-page-1#comment-5934 Steven Borg Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:42:06 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/06/diminishing-ret.html#comment-5934 <p>I'm definitely NOT tired of your posts on global warming. In contrast to most sources, your thoughts appear to be level-headed, clear, and without the shrillness of most discussions of this topic. </p> I’m definitely NOT tired of your posts on global warming. In contrast to most sources, your thoughts appear to be level-headed, clear, and without the shrillness of most discussions of this topic.

]]> By: Anon E. Mouse http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/06/diminishing-ret.html/comment-page-1#comment-5933 Anon E. Mouse Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:47:30 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2007/06/diminishing-ret.html#comment-5933 <p>Although I agree with the conclusion, I think the weakness is that the feedback (sign and magnitude) *is* the controlling factor. Obviously, if the sign is negative, we can roll over and go back to sleep. CO2 won't drive more than a bit of temp. change. But if the sign is positive, then the uglier scenarios are possible.</p> <p>Of course, if the feedback magnitude is a constant, then, yes, any CO2 driven global warming is a pretty limited event. But if the feedback magnitude is in fact a function of temperature, then the runaway scenarios could happen. For a purely fictional example not meant to reflect reality in any way, suppose that as temperature increased, polar caps and snow cover melts, and the earth reflects less sunlight, which drives temperature upward, which melts more snow, and so on. Pretty soon we're a cool version of Venus.</p> <p>But we have hundreds of millions of years of experiments that have never shown that effect. Cut through the noise and intentional or negligent distortions of data and we know one thing for sure -- the earth is the temperature it is today despite any dinosaur killin' meteorites, volcanic what-have-yous, etc. </p> <p>Moreover, we know, from Al Gore's own charts, that temperature and CO2 have been this high before. And what happened? Temperature returned to the norm, CO2 decreased.</p> <p>Thus, a negative feedback system. The sign is negative, the magnitude is “who cares, but big enough to win.” End of freakin’ story.<br /> </p> Although I agree with the conclusion, I think the weakness is that the feedback (sign and magnitude) *is* the controlling factor. Obviously, if the sign is negative, we can roll over and go back to sleep. CO2 won’t drive more than a bit of temp. change. But if the sign is positive, then the uglier scenarios are possible.

Of course, if the feedback magnitude is a constant, then, yes, any CO2 driven global warming is a pretty limited event. But if the feedback magnitude is in fact a function of temperature, then the runaway scenarios could happen. For a purely fictional example not meant to reflect reality in any way, suppose that as temperature increased, polar caps and snow cover melts, and the earth reflects less sunlight, which drives temperature upward, which melts more snow, and so on. Pretty soon we’re a cool version of Venus.

But we have hundreds of millions of years of experiments that have never shown that effect. Cut through the noise and intentional or negligent distortions of data and we know one thing for sure — the earth is the temperature it is today despite any dinosaur killin’ meteorites, volcanic what-have-yous, etc.

Moreover, we know, from Al Gore’s own charts, that temperature and CO2 have been this high before. And what happened? Temperature returned to the norm, CO2 decreased.

Thus, a negative feedback system. The sign is negative, the magnitude is “who cares, but big enough to win.” End of freakin’ story.

]]>