= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (221)
What exactly is the claim I made for which you are requesting a citation? Let's make sure we are on the same page here.
Also, if you just want to debate global warming as opposed to rationalism in general, I would ask that you visit my blog.
I was asking for citations suggesting that water vapor feedback doesn't happen. I'll grant that the argument is off-topic, though.
I'm not trying to get cute, but please re-read my post. I did not claim that water vapor feedback does not happen. (Obviously that's an important question, and I invite you to discuss it with me on my blog.)
I apologize - I assumed your claim was that an increase of CO2 sufficient to directly cause a 1°C rise (about a doubling, is what I've heard) would make no more than 1°C rise. I objected because my current understanding is that the water vapor increases that to about 3°C rise.
If we have no disagreement on that point, we have no disagreement on anything that has been said denotatively so far. And, as we can both agree, any further remarks would be severely off-topic.
FWIW I do disagree with you on that point. But it was a different point from the one I was making.
I address the sensitivity issue in large part here:
http://brazil84.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/40a-simulations/