DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Triiooman** · 04-27-2012, 10:00 PM

You know there's a "Reply with Quote" button. I personally think it delineates the post better and makes it easier to read.

I'm not interested in the opinions of scientists. I'm only interested in what evidence the data brings

When we have multiple streams of data I'd be interested in the opinions of the experts as to which one is good and which one is bad. I might not always agree but I'd always be very interested and, unless I have a good reason not to agree I'd take their word for it. It is their field of expertise after all.

The models predicted negative lapse rate feedback. This is the opposite of what has occurred.
The models predicted a hot spot in the mid troposphere. This has not occurred.
The models predicted an increase in mid tropospheric water vapour. This has not occurred.

There have been many models of the years. I merely said I believed positive feedback was a big part of the currently accepted ones, you said it had been discredited.

We have reached the 3/4 mark for the equivalent of a doubling of co2 (the 160% increase in CH4 accounts for this) but we have only seen a 0.8C rise in temp. According to the strongly positive feedback scenario due predominantly water vapour feedback, we should has had a temp rise of around 1.8C.

The missing heat?

Why are you asking me? I'm not an expert. I just said I believed that the currently accepted models, the ones that have most accurately model the past, have positive feedback as a big factor.

04-27-2012, 10:00 PM	#23
Triiooman Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 554 Senior Member	You know there's a "Reply with Quote" button. I personally think it delineates the post better and makes it easier to read. I'm not interested in the opinions of scientists. I'm only interested in what evidence the data brings When we have multiple streams of data I'd be interested in the opinions of the experts as to which one is good and which one is bad. I might not always agree but I'd always be very interested and, unless I have a good reason not to agree I'd take their word for it. It is their field of expertise after all. The models predicted negative lapse rate feedback. This is the opposite of what has occurred. The models predicted a hot spot in the mid troposphere. This has not occurred. The models predicted an increase in mid tropospheric water vapour. This has not occurred. There have been many models of the years. I merely said I believed positive feedback was a big part of the currently accepted ones, you said it had been discredited. We have reached the 3/4 mark for the equivalent of a doubling of co2 (the 160% increase in CH4 accounts for this) but we have only seen a 0.8C rise in temp. According to the strongly positive feedback scenario due predominantly water vapour feedback, we should has had a temp rise of around 1.8C. The missing heat? Why are you asking me? I'm not an expert. I just said I believed that the currently accepted models, the ones that have most accurately model the past, have positive feedback as a big factor.
	Quote