"If the answer is simple, God is speaking"
-Albert Einstein
Imagine a steep incline, like a ski slope only solid and smooth. This incline ends on a piece of glass, not a pane of glass but an entire plain of glass, stretching out into the distance. This infinite expanse of glass is not only perfectly flat but perfectly level.
Now you take a perfectly round ball to the top of the incline and you let it roll down the incline until it meets the plane of glass and begins to roll across the surface of the glass. Will the ball ever stop?
I imagine without much thought at all, you will say "of course it will eventually stop, what a stupid question." You are of course correct, without some other input, the ball must eventually stop, but why?
The reason the ball will eventually stop rolling, even in a vacuum, is the same reason it began to roll in the first place, gravity. Gravity made the ball roll down the incline, but gravity also gave the ball weight. Without gravity there is no such thing as weight, not in the physical sense. The weight of the ball against the surface of the glass creates friction and that friction will slow, then eventually stop the balls forward motion. This gravity induced friction is called a negative feedback.
I seldom like to use Wikipedia but their definition of negative feedback is very simple and easy to understand.
For what I am going to discuss the next paragraph about negative feedback is perfect. Thank you Mr. Wiki (emphasis mine)
Whereas positive feedback tends to lead to instability via exponential growth, oscillation or chaotic behavior, negative feedback generally promotes stability. Negative feedback tends to promote a settling to equilibrium, and reduces the effects of perturbations.
Or as Sir Issac Newton explained in his third law of physics a long time ago.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
As Mr Wiki explained above, despite having such a negative name, negative feedback is actually very good. Without negative feedback stability there would be a universe of instability, exponential growth, oscillation or chaotic behavior. From a physical standpoint, it keeps the world stable. The physical world, the Universe, God's entire creation is literally a never ending orchestra of positive and negative feedbacks playing a melody in beautiful harmony.
Which brings us to the subject at hand, global warming, now known as climate change or climate disruption. All of these terms base there premise in the beginning from the very real and well understood theory of the Greenhouse Effect.
The Greenhouse Effect is how the Earth has become the paradise it is. Simply put, certain elements in the atmosphere trap heat which allows the Earth to maintain temperatures which can sustain life as we know it. For all we know there could be other circumstances in God's vast creation that maintain different life as we don't know it, but I will confine myself to the known.
The Global Warming hypothesis and all its offshoots begin with the Greenhouse Effect but that is not the end of the story, obviously. They add an element to it that has little to do with carbon dioxide and more to do with negative feedback, or the lack of it in their hypothesis. The Global Warming hypothesis is actually based solely on what is known as the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. The souped up version of the Greenhouse effect. If you Google it you will find something like this:
The enhanced greenhouse effect and climate change. The disruption to Earth's climate equilibrium caused by the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases has led to an increase in the global average surface temperatures. This process is called the enhanced greenhouse effect.
That statement above, over the past two decades has become the accepted definition of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, that is not what it originally was or in fact is. That is the simple condensed, let's leave out the facts, propaganda version to teach the children so that they can grow up believing a lie...and they have. They have succeeded in taking a misunderstood false hypothesis and made it into a global "truth" which most of the world bows to. Put on your mask damn it.
Here is the actual description of the enhanced greenhouse effect from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4) . First there is this, we shall call it part 1: (emphasis mine)
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes
To put that simply, if the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide were to double, either instantly or over time the Earth's temperature would rise by 1.2°C (2.16°F). I know I ought to be a gobbledygook interpreter.
Why doubled? Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere does not continue to increase the heat it radiates back to the Earth, the more there is, the less it reflects back. This is a well established scientific fact. At about double of the industrial age levels it loses all ability to "heat" the Earth. At that doubling level, at most it can raise temperatures 1.2°C or 2.16°F.
These temperatures are not enough to greatly affect us or the planet, in fact they actually would be quite beneficial increased crop land and yield etc. In fact we know these temperatures are not harmful, an example from the Archeology News Network
“For the first time, we can state the roman period was the warmest period of time of the last 2,000 years, and these conditions lasted for 500 years”,
And how warm was it in those five hundred years of rapid human advancement?
...the Roman period (1-500 AD) as the warmest period of the last 2,000 years, 2ºC warmer than the average values at the end of the century.
The warm freaks try to convince people that this obvious period of warming was localized or at most just the Northern Hemisphere, but there is enough proof that period of warming, and others were global.
Back to the Part 1 of the IPCC's description of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. From this we learn this crucial fact
The most carbon dioxide by itself can warm the Earth is 1.2°C or 2.16°F - period
Since we know that temperatures have been that warm, even warmer in the past , what's the big deal? There is no big deal so they have to add part 2, which is the real meaning of Enhanced Greenhouse Effect. From the IPPC (AR4) (emphasis mine) :
In reality, due to feedback, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedback amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
OH, OH we got some of that old nasty positive feedback going on ! And what is that feedback? (again emphasis mine, I can't help myself)
The so-called water vapour feedback, caused by an increase in atmospheric water vapour due to a temperature increase, is the most important feedback responsible for the amplification of the temperature increase.
There we finally have it, the enhanced (amplification of the [initial] temperature increase) greenhouse effect. One more time for those of you sleeping through class.
To summarize, a doubling of CO2 will cause the temperature to increase by 1.2 degC, this increased temperature will then cause more evaporation of water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere which will amplify the effect of the CO2 caused warming, got it?
You see the problem, well it is not a problem for the warm freaks anymore they have just propagandized society for so long that most of the scientist that objected have died off, but the problem is still there. (emphasis, blah.blah,blah)
(T)he Roman period (1-500 AD) as the warmest period of the last 2,000 years, 2ºC warmer than the average values at the end of the century.
The century they are talking about is the twentieth century. The five hundred years of The Roman Warm Period (there were others) was two degrees warmer than the average temperature at the end of the twentieth century.
So, if I might be so bold, what happened to that all important water-vapour feedback? Why, if temperatures were not just 1.2C warmer but a full 2C warmer for half a millennium, didn't the positive feedback kick in and fry Caesar? The theory as put forth by its proponents clearly states that this increase in temperatures should have been amplified and created all the dire effects that they teach the children, and even their parents before them, why didn't it happen back then? And more important, if it did not happen then why will it happen now?
Upon reflection I have determined It could only be the result of one of two possibilities. A lack of cow farts or..... maybe, just maybe -negative feedback?
They know the answer, they have always known the answer, they can't explain it, but they know. But there is no serious money to be made or societies to be made over with the answer. The lie is profitable, the lie is controlling, the answer is neither but it is simple:
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
We, in our arrogance, think we control the most wondrous of designs, when in reality we are not even infants in our understanding of the universe around us. Even when we know the truth we deny it, if it does not fit into our plans, as if our denial will change what is.
Whereas positive feedback tends to lead to instability via exponential growth, oscillation or chaotic behavior, negative feedback generally promotes stability. Negative feedback tends to promote a settling to equilibrium, and reduces the effects of perturbations.
The ball stops rolling for the same reason the temperature stops rising, God's harmony.
As a Christian I might just throw in this,
"Our God is not the God of confusion but of order."
Amen to that Brother Paul.
(emphasis mine)
Comments