Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

First reply in moderation. Basically they show that a positive cloud feedback occurs in warming conditions as it does in the more sensitive models that emergent constraints tend to back up. Not good for the last great hope of skeptics who wanted a low sensitivity from a negative cloud feedback, right?


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

The modeled cloud feedbacks are shown below. And models are discussed. This is just narrative clutching at straws from #jiminy.

The surface observations linked, the geophysics quoted and the satellite data cited all say something different.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

The observations show the cloud albedo reducing over sea-surface warming, a positive feedback. A negative feedback would have had the albedo responding in the opposite direction as the surface warms.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

The upwelling region of the eastern Pacific is where sea surface temperature changes most over a large portion of the oceanic tropics and subtropics. This doesn’t happen? And this pattern of stochastically forced charge/discharge doesn’t evolve chaotically over decades to millennia? As in the quote from Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer above?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

In the world of scientific realists the Earth system is chaotic. This was covered in the discussion of modest and transient AGW superimposed on a world of perpetual chaotic change.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

And again with his silly little correlation that says nothing about this other thing happening in climate that caused at least half the warming in the last 40 years – including most of the recent spike.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

Some can’t understand the forcing and response overlaid in this way. They’re still trying to figure it out. Big forcing = big response. Drowns out chaos too. Signal over noise.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

When you find “this other thing” that has also steadily increased by 1 W/m2 over the last 40 years to mimic the CO2 increase, let us know.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

correction … You might note that 0.2 K warming in the 1990’s times 0.5 W per m2 per K is O.1 W/m2 feedback…

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

Blanket denial of whole swathes of mainstream science – and entrenched agnotology from progressive AGW fanatics. Did I expect anything different?

The longer term evolution of the Pacific subsystem shows a 20th century peak in the intensity and frequency of Pacific warm states – likely modulated by solar variability. The natural element of modern era warming – manifesting as internal deterministically chaotic climate regime shifts – energetically manifesting in cloud variability – will be lost this century. The ‘hiatus’ is only just starting.

Tick tock.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Geoff Sherrington

0
0

JimD
You have fairly rigid ideas about global surface temperature variability.
Would you consider learning from an essay that contains this passage?

“On present knowledge, three dominant processes affect global surface air temperature estimates.
1. Natural variation
2. Greenhouse gases
3. Measurement inaccuracy, including UHI.

The relative proportions of these are not yet known. In particular, the uncertainty of estimated climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is large and unchanged by 30 years of intensive research. The UHI effect has the capacity to be as large as the others, but its magnitude is again poorly understood.”

The essay is here –
http://www.geoffstuff.com/UHI FINAL DRAFT.docx

Geoff

Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid

Comment on Week in review – science edition by angech

0
0

JCH,
Where does this year look like coming in, 3rd to 6th in terms of warming and which data sets?
Secondly is the El Nino going to form more or stop?
Either way have a happy XMas and the same to everyone else here on the blog.

Comment on Climate sensitivity to cumulative carbon emissions by frankclimate


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

It is not feeding back to anything. The sun warms something. The response doesn’t affect the sun. The feedback is to the response, and without something being defined as the no-feedback response, it would make no sense. It either amplifies or suppresses the no-feedback response. This is the common meaning used in climate science. Feedback is often visualized as an added loop to a direct response arrow.
You are fast reaching Moncktonian levels of misunderstanding the meaning of feedbacks. I can’t help you.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

The Planck feedback – named as such by the IPCC btw – is not a no feedback response by any stretch of the imagination – apart from #jiminy’s.

It is a fundamental of physics defined for a blackbody by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html

I think he must imagine that the Earth warms for whatever reason but this doesn’t result in exponentially higher IR emissions at the warmer temperature.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

Does he imagine that the Planck response is simply a warmer body – and then you get cloud, lapse and water vapor feedbacks? That would be error at a very basic level.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

0
0

It’s sloppy language. You have to be able to distinguish the no-feedback response from the feedback itself to understand what feedback is, otherwise you get very confused.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison

0
0

The planet will respond to warming by emitting exponentially more IR in a large negative feedback. Very basic physics. The process is and a core climate concept. And this way beyond tedious. Try to comprehend Stefan-Boltzman.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images