Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


older | 1 | .... | 4075 | 4076 | (Page 4077) | 4078 | 4079 | .... | 4134 | newer

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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?

    0 0

    In what world is this chaotic? At 0.995 correlation since 1968, it is about the most ordered response you can expect from observational data. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.005/mean:80/offset:-0.6/mean:40/plot/best/from:1988/trend

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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...

    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.

    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

    0 0

    +1

    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.

    0 0

    For your kindly attention: https://i.imgur.com/J0Zpx2b.jpg Source: https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf (It's a peer reviewed paper)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

older | 1 | .... | 4075 | 4076 | (Page 4077) | 4078 | 4079 | .... | 4134 | newer