Climate Catastrophe

Townhall.com ^ | December 10, 2014 | John Stossel

[RipSawyer]

“It has always struck me as bizarre that anyone would think that the earth’s climate has any substantial amount of positive feedback.”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Probably because they are caught up in the idea that anything called positive should yield “positive” results, those of us who have some training in electronics or related fields understand that a positive feedback loop yields disastrous results. Many would have trouble understanding that the loud screeching they have heard when an amplifier is turned up too loud is the result of positive feedback, they may think that is negative feedback simply because the result is not anything they consider positive.

[Kaslin]

There’s nothing to agree on other that it nothing but a bunch of hogwash

[marktwain]

“0.04% (would be 0.03% without mankind’s contributions). The point is that those molecules matter. There are more than enough of them (10^21 CO2 molecules per cubic meter) to capture the outgoing IR with the right wavelength and heat the rest of the atmosphere (N2 and O2).”

The question is: How Much? Isn’t it?

Sure, it can have some effect. The question is, how much, and how much negative feedback does it create.

That leaves open the question of whether or not heating is good or bad, a completely different, and much harder to answer topic.

[hinckley buzzard]

The alarmists needed to incorporate positive feedback into their hypothetical model because they knew at the outset that CO2 level alone would not have the desired effect on global temperature. The vaunted "Greenhouse Effect" does not operate in the open system of a planetary atmosphere the way it does in a laboratory experiment.

[palmer]

Exactly, although I think the warming is mainly a good thing. People in Siberia will agree and people in already warm climates (e.g. Miami) are not affected.