Jon Doe

No, feedback cycles have happened, numerous times in the past. The ice ages being particular spectacular examples of them. The question is not whether they happen, but whether we could contribute to one happening. And you don't answer my point that the very complexity of the system should argue for us being careful about our concerns about how effects on it, not be less worried. This is all fascinating stuff as long as it's kept in perspective. Too many alarmists with personal agendas. How does that song go? Everyone is saying, "It's the end of the world as we know it." (But I feel fine.) Anyway, you guys carry on. I have to go find dinner.

I'm not sure I get your point. Scientific arguments aren't characterized by having no compexities or free variables. They are characterized by how well they explain the complexities or free variables and predict their actions. The climate is complex, effects based on a single feedback cycle can certainly be overwhelmed by some other effect and prevent the cycle from going to the extreme. This is hardly any sort of controversial idea. A negative feedback cycle could be overwhelmed by an increase in output from the sun, or vice versa. An upwards cycle could be cut short by a very large volcanic eruption that lowers temperatures. Either cycle could probably be heavily affected (upwards or downwards) by some change in large scale ocean currents. It's a complex system. But it makes no sense to me to use the complexity of the system as an argument against being very careful about how we monkey with it by our actions. It should be an argument for being very careful exactly becasue of the complexity of what we are monkeying with. The point I'm making is that "feedback cycle" is a more technical way of saying, "something really bad might happen but we don't really know." I think lay people already know this and that's why there have been predictions of armegaddon since the beginning of recorded history.

The last really bad one would be the last ice age, AFAIK. Not all of them are going to run all the way to the extreme. Some will go for a while and be affected by some larger change that counter acts them in some way. And our planet certainly has compensating mechanisms, else it wouldn't be able to maintain any sort of equilibrium. That's a lot of free variables for a scientific argument.

There was none. I pointed out that he is quoting very limited sources as proof of the incorrectness of a widely held consensus. Several people quoted valid sources. This isn't about a show of hands. It's about facts. If you go back and read old issues of Farmer's Almanac you'll find people have been arguing about the climate/weather for centuries. This is just the same song in a modern key signature.

It's any process which feeds on itself in a positive or negative way. It's just like guitar feedback. The strings are affected by the speaker output, which feeds back into the pickups which causes the speakers to react which causes the strings to react, etc... It feeds on itself. Large climate changes, such as the ice ages, are feedback events. A cycle starts which feeds on itself and creates further effects that make it go further, etc... So you start getting more snow cover, which reflects more sunlight back out into space, which cools the planet more, which causes more snow, etc... That kind of thing. Greenhouse cycles can also be feedback cycles. More heat is held into the atmosphere which causes more release of gases, which causes more heat to be held in, etc... Venus is an example of a greenhouse feedback cycle run amok. When was the last "feedback cycle" on earth?

You seem to have a tendancy to quote single papers or books which are at odds with widely held scientific opinion, which you tend to want to believe because they support your view, but in the process ignore the much more widely held view. These people who you quote, if they were widely believed in the scientific community, would be highly famous because they all seem to be proving that the rest of the scientific community is wrong on fundamental things. In the 15th century the widely held scientific opinion was that the world was flat. In 1492 a Spanish sailing captain disproved this. Adhominem attacks are unnecessary in this discusion.

I think that's stretching things way beyond reasonability. We've created the most powerful and extensive civilization of all time and we didn't need a climate optimum to do it, assuming that there's really any real connection to those previous events, which seems pretty iffy at best. And those civilizations didn't then start pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, so they weren't in danger of setting off a feedback cycle. What is a feedback cycle?

1. We've gotten onto the score board in a single century, which is nothing. And there are more and more people who want to live our lifestyle moving forward and more people being born all the time. 2. How do you know that that percentage increase isn't important? 3. We are producing those molecules on a continuing basis year after year, and that will go up and it will continue to increase in rate if we don't do something about that. The population of the planet has doubled in my lifetime. To state that human byproducts increasingly effect the environment is merely stating the obvious. I still hold that contrary to popular opinion, the sky is not falling.

Note that I don't believe or disbelieve ... . This is indeed, wise.

I agree - but the antarctic ice shelf is at a record high. - they don't mention that. Could you please quote a source for that?

If all the ice in the arctic melted sea level would not be affected. Floating ice melt does not alter sea levels. True, but that's not what climatologists are concerned about. It's the Greenland and Antarctic ice that could raise the sea level by 40 feet if melted.

But it's not exactly practical to put any useful pressure on them when we are the worst per-capita consumers of energy on the planet. As long as that's the case, they are going have a completely founded ground to stand on that why should they remain primitive so that we can keep being such? We are like a known coke addict preaching to people to say no to drugs. But we're not the worst polluters. Far from it. I wish people could grasp two simple truths: The Market isn't the economy, and CO2 isn't the climate. Our climate is very complex and no single person understands it completely. It is based on the sun, plate tektonics, ocean currents, atmospherics, and natural planetary change. Getting tunnel vision about one possible aspect of it only serves to obscure understanding of the overall phenomenon. So back to my original point. We're going to use climate change to advance our agendas. Why don't we just sacrifice some chickens and goats and throw a virgin in the volcano then move on to something else? (Like "The End Of Times" issue)

It doesn't have anthing to do with controlling the weather or climate, it has to do with not contributing to a natural tendancy of the climate to go off on really bad feedback cycles due to changes in the gaseous composition of the atmosphere. It's done it before, and we are pumping a lot of known greenhouse compounds into the atmosphere which could contribute to kicking off another cycle. I agree with you. I remember how bad the smog and pollution was back in the 60's/70's. We passed a lot of legislation that made a huge difference as can be seen today. The problem now is that the vast majority of the planet has no such legislation. Keep in mind that China, for a month prior to the Olympics, prohibited manufacturing and automobiles within a 100 mile radius of Bejing so the smog would clear and the media could film in sunshine. China+India = half the planet.

Wha? You are comparing religious persecution of people with an attempt to figure out if we are contributing to global warming? Not at all. I'm comparing the responses of the "Educated Elite" and the masses to weather/climate change. It's identical to 1000 years ago. There are bad people (SUV drivers and everyone who voted for Bush) who are responsible for our looming catostrophe. They should be penalized in some way for the fact that they aren't as "green" as me because I drive a prius and voted for Al Gore (who also happens to be an expert on global warming). No matter how much we learn and try to control the weather and/or climate we will fail. It has always changed since the dawn of time, and it always will. What I am saying is that politicizing it is foolishness.

In the past thousand years as significant climate change has occured, many societies fell and/or went through irreversible change. In recorded history, fault for climate change was always laid at the feet of the "bad people" in the society and they were singled out for ridicule, persecution, and even death. The black plague and resulting "inquisition" are but one example. "If it's good enough for the priests, it's good enough for me. They're the ones with the education! " Sometimes I think it's kind of scary how little we have really changed. We still need to assign blame and persecute.