Robin - >As the temperature rises, more water evaporates. >This is a positive feedback loop. The effect of >the CO2 is thus leveraged by water vapor.
..and then it rains. Big moderator to the loop. >To make matters worse, the tundra is melting too, >and also yielding up both CO2 and CH4 (another strong >greenhouse gas). Yet another positive feedback loop. ...then it snows on the tundra again. >It may not be "hundreds of years", but mere decades, >if these positive feedback loops kick in strongly. Maybe. But kicks in which way? If we do act according to most recipes, how are we supposed to know how what we're doing is supposed to work out? Where's our precedent for this type of action - certainly not the Mu. Most greens would say we should do all that we can, but how are we to know if we've done too much or anything at all? If climate begins to cycle back, how will we know if it is part of a natural cycle, or whether we been given valid feedback on our actions? How hard do we rub that troll doll's fluorescent green hair in order to win? If we lose, do we know if we rubbed it too hard or not hard enough? Reminds me of that old Twilight Zone story about the Earth heating up as it spirals in towards the sun. Then the guy wakes up... I don't mean to be disrespectful or flippant here, and most certainly not to you personally Robin. But I'm just not hearing or finding anything that goes to convincing cause/effect on this in either the "mainstream" or "progressive" or even "fringe" (that last said with greatest affection and respect) sources like here on Vortex. I think it has all become like the high priests are shaking their fist at an eclipse and telling me I had better fill their coffers with my treasure so they can defeat the dragon that's swallowing the sun before it's too late. All cheerleading and no game. I hear a lot about a huge amount of government funded science going on, but very little in the way of a convincing cause and effect coming out of it. Big reports about consensus. But most of the data passes very well for coincidence, and ALL the numerical simulations are of course garbage - and the people who run them know that. Not surprisingly, your description right here just now comes about as close to C&A as any I've heard. But is that close enough for proof, and does it show us we could do anything about it if we wanted to? And what about those big Mu - the "sinking" events? I can go out to the sea cliffs near my house and see the ledges underwater from the last two big ones. They used to be shorelines. Do we even know what our baseline's really supposed to be? Will we be able to see a 'trend' in an unknowable chaotic system? The gambler incorrectly thinks he sees one - that was one of the points of that example. Until someone comes up with any real answers to the severe problems with the founding principles of AGW, I think a buck spent towards "changing the climate" is a buck wasted by not being spent on preparations for a changing climate. The climate is always changing. I think we only see little pieces of the huge puzzle of these feedback and moderating systems, and very little evidence, especially in light of obvious historical facts, that our lifestyles and *our* carbon have anything to do with it. - Rick
