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 | .... | 4076 | 4077 | (Page 4078) | 4079 | 4080 | .... | 4134 | newer

    0 0

    The Planck Response is defined as the warming you get with no feedbacks. There's the Forcing and the Response, and also potentially Feedbacks to the Response that amplify or suppress it. The Planck Response to doubling CO2 is about 1.2 C. Larger responses come from a positive feedback and smaller ones from a negative feedback. The response is the warming and the Planck Response is a special case.

    0 0

    Define a positive feedback then. That also is a case of warming which you would also call a negative feedback. The only thing you would call a positive feedback is runaway warming or maybe that is extremely negative in your terms because it is even more warming than the Planck Response. Think about it. You see what a mess your definition is.

    0 0

    "The Planck feedback is the most basic and universal climate feedback, and is present in every climate model. It is simply an expression of the fact that a warm planet radiates more to space than a cold planet. As we will see, our estimate of λ0=−3.3 W m^−2 K^−1 is essentially the same as the Planck feedback diagnosed from complex GCMs. Unlike our simple zero-dimensional model, however, most other climate models (and the real climate system) have other radiative processes, such that λ≠λ0 ." http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20--%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html

    0 0

    What utter nonsense. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Fig7-09-1024x584.jpg The Planck response is not 1.2 C - it is -3.1 W.m^-2.K^-1

    0 0

    JimD, Sorry the essay was beyond you. You were invited to learn from it because your dogma is out of date. Geoff.

    0 0

    OK, so you don't even define the response in terms of how much warming it goes with. This may be why you can't define a positive feedback. For you any amount of warming is a negative feedback, the more warming the more negative. Opposite to common sense.

    0 0

    That's fine. Do you say anything different from other skeptics that would be worth looking at, or is it just a repackaged mash-up? I've seen it all before, and it is less than convincing.

    0 0

    Positive and negative feedbacks have +ve and -ve signs in front of them. It is explicit in the IPCC graphic. What's your freakin point?

    0 0

    The Planck response is -3.2 W/m2/K. If the actual response is -1 W/m2/K that is still a negative feedback to you, but a strong positive feedback in climate terms because it would be 3.7 K per doubling instead of 1.2. See how opposite to reality your definition is?

    0 0

    Using the 4 W/m2 for a doubling of CO2 and IPCC feedbacks - with the simple formula in the link I provided earlier - you get an ECS of 2.6 K - depending largely on clouds. LOL. But that is really a quite pointless exercise. Much like this. You confuse the Planck response with the Planck feedback and piffle on with your usual snark. That is contrary to common sense.

    0 0

    Is an ECS of 2.6 K a positive or negative feedback to you?

    0 0

    The Planck feedback is -3.2 m-2 K^-1. The Plaqnck response is 1.2 K. Confusing? Not really.

    0 0

    So what is a positive feedback to you? Your definition has any warming at all as a negative feedback. The more warming the more negative. Doesn't make sense.

    0 0

    Net feedbacks are always negative or the formula loses all physical meaning. ΔTs = -(R/λ) Plug in R for a CO2 doubling an net λ - in quadrature ideally to account for uncertainties. How accurate or useful is any of it? Not very - especially if you murder the basics. . .

    0 0

    You have your own definition then, because in climate, any sensitivity larger than 1.2 C per doubling signals a positive feedback, but a positive feedback is impossible under your definition just using a sign. You would be very confused by people talking about positive feedbacks if you really believe your definition of it.

    0 0

    […] (https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/) provides an independent research report on sea rise. It makes interesting reading, but is not […]

    0 0

    The less negative the net feedback - the more the warming. Makes perfect sense. ΔTs=−(R/λ) For doubling of CO2 - with only the Planck feedback. ΔTs=−(4 W/m2 / -3.2 W m^2 K^-1) = 1.2 K Everything you don't know is here. Pay particular attention to the derivation if you can. http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20--%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html

    0 0

    That's a confused definition. He defines the difference from the Planck Response as a positive or negative feedback, while also defining the Planck Response as a negative feedback itself when the difference from itself is zero implying zero feedback. Muddled. Two different contradictory negative feedback definitions. A mess you wouldn't get into if you defined it as the Planck Response, not a feedback itself.

    0 0

    1.2 K is the response using only the Planck feedback - do you understand now why it is called the Planck response? But there are positive feedbacks shown in the IPCC graphics. The sum is also shown - and clouds may be positive if uncertain. The sum - is what you do with feedbacks - is less negative than the Planck feedback by itself and the response is greater. Are you not capable of understanding the link provided? Or are you simply arguing nonsense now for climate partisan reasons? http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/brose/classes/ATM623_Spring2015/Notes/Lectures/Lecture03%20--%20Climate%20sensitivity%20and%20feedback.html

    0 0

    I am saying you have two different definitions of negative feedback in that article. Better to stick with sign of the difference from the Planck response, which is therefore the no-feedback response. See here, for example. https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity-part-ii/

older | 1 | .... | 4076 | 4077 | (Page 4078) | 4079 | 4080 | .... | 4134 | newer