And that is exactly the point. There are numerous feedback loops that are accelerating the problem which is why people are concerned about the initial warming.
The whole feedback loop argument is based upon the premise that atmospheric CO2 is the driver for any warming of the oceans. Lots of deep sea effusive (non explosive) volcanic activity going on all the time . How much impact on temperature did our little ozone hole cause? UV radiation is much higher in frequency and energy than Infrared.
Ocean current changes and warming/ cooling cycles have been measured on a decadal scale & the time -scale ocean data is definately limited . It could be changes occur over centuries or even on geological time scales
Your feedback argument is a circular argument without any hard scientific evidence to back it up
You chose to use the word accelerating, but you honestly do not know if net feedbacks are positive , negative , negligible or quite impactful
Yet you allowed your bias to assume they are positive and accelerating
BTW
1. There are both positive and negative possible feedbacks
ie more water evaporating into the atmosphere results in more cloud formation. During the daytime more clouds theortically blocks more incoming solar radiation
During the nighttime theoretically it slows the radiation of IR energy transmission out of the atmosphere
High altitude cloud formation should theoretically be a negative, with lower altitude clouds being a theoretical positive
In addition more water vapour in the atmosphere would lead to more rain which cools the surface down
Changing water vapour in the atmosphere very likely has impacts on convection and turbulent air flows. Convection is one of the primary drivers of thermal energy transfer (Hot air rises)
Who knows what are the net impacts of all of these interactions?
You? I do not think so
Climate modelers? Nope
2. Climate science does not understand cloud formation or the impacts of clouds very well at all
Modelling the dynamics of turbulent flows is one of the outstanding big scientific problems yet to be solved . There has been a million dollar prize available for who ever can solve this . This prize has been available for a couple of decades. So for no takers. Odd how such an important piece of the puzzle remains a mystery ....after all was the science not settled as declared by Pres Obama (a politican!) ?
3. In addition to a poor understanding the impacts of feedbacks, it is impossible to isolate and quantify these feedbacks from any primarly source based upon temperature data sets.
So climate modelers assume positive feedbacks & guess. The guesses have always overshot the actuals.
That is pseudoscience
Climate is extremely dynamic, and extremely complex. Probably the most complex scientific problem man has tried to tackle other than perhaps the complexities of the human brain.
Declaring the science settled and declaring CO2 is the control knob for climate is unbelievable arrogant, huburis and irresponsible.
Furthermore the act of shutting down debate on the issue, silencing critics and opposing views will ensure mans true understanding of climate is held back for multiple generations to come.
With negative impacts on all science in general
i can not emphasise enough how evil and destructive this is
And that is even before considering the massive negative economic impacts and the lives lost due to ill concieved and unattainable energy policies this pseudoscience has resulted in
Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020.
Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss
On Ignore: FrankFooter