We have established many times already that you don’t know the feedback loop definition that defines the Planck Response as a no-feedback response, and defines a net positive feedback as an amplification of the Planck Response.
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
Yes, you don’t know this definition. I keep telling you that and you keep telling me that.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
“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 .”
You show the schematic of an electronic circuit – and neglect the rest?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
This is no non radiative definition of feedback. Temperature changes toa radiant flux with net negative feedbacks until the forcing is negated. There is no other meaning. .
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
What is demonstrated is that you still don’t understand what it is that is being fed back into. Positive feedbacks amplify TOA radiant imbalances and negative damp them. Net feedbacks are negative – thus no runaway global change. Except at glacial/interglacial transitions.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
It makes very little difference – with more emitted CO2 – even with the natural spike at the end.
blob:https://wordpress.com/0e2d78cc-cabe-4489-ba01-ae04013586a1
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
WP blobs!!!!!
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
ECS is the temperature increase when increased forcing is compensated for by increased losses at TOA – from primarily the negative temperature feedback – as these things are ‘conventionally’ understood.
TCRE is a more powerful idea – and it is at the low end of the IPCC 0.8 to 1.8 K range.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
I keep responding to your leading questions. Is there an end to this aberrant tenacity in sight?
↧
Comment on Cliff Mass: victim of academic political bullying by v8a4y5v8a4y5
Judith Curry, you once again surpass yourself in cherry picking one (or a few) examples of what from a distance appears to some sort of bullying in the academia hierarchy to come to Cliff Mass’s reputational rescue, by necessity ignoring a well documented record in his own Blog of his own political grandstanding and demonizing. I wouldn’t be surprised that the gist of your drift is probable, but if the net result and intention is to place Cliff Mass on some sort of sacred pillar of the noble non conformist then I’m afraid your own research skills are as much in doubt as the usual parade of suspects here, such as Anthony Watts.
Cliff Mass is only guilty, professionally speaking, of pointing out what the majority of his peers will also say, which is that relatively speaking, current day climate change effects are small in any extreme weather event, those events being mostly the usual “natural variability” swings that existed before and will still be there decades from now.
In other words, he is guilty of nothing technically astray of mainstream climate science. What he is guilty of – arguably to the point of incompetence or misrepresentation of skill – is how he consistently, repeatedly and predictably frames these climate facts in terms of not just politics or societal risk, but even the implications for associated sciences, such as ecology or psychology, things he obviously has no skill in yet irresponsibly blogs about til the cows come home anyway.
I would happily list a number of examples and will if you like but one juicy one is a Blog page devoted to suggesting that Climate change deniers should not be called “deniers” due entirely to some specious claim that it is only a slur somehow associating them with – get this – Hollocaust denial!
Ask any psychologist if “denial” is an actual term reserved for a observable and predictable cognitive behaviour and you will only get an affirmative, Hollocaust or Climate change being only one of many circumstances where it occurs, yet Cliff refused all reasonable argument on this point, doggedly insisting that Climate change deniers deserve, unlike all the other deniers out there it seems, to be given special status as “doubters”, which apparently is a bit more respectable.
Which begs the question: Exactly how respectable is doubting any more than denying, when the doubter typically is incompetent?
Anyway, if you , Judith Curry, wish to debate this further I invite you to do so. I only ask the you research his prodigious record before hand. Like you, he does know his climate science but also like you, that is the general limits of his expertise. That is obvious if you devote a few weeks to observing all that he says. Like you, he has a responsibility to provide advise and opinion that corresponds with his proven skill. The rest is just wild speculation…. and it shows
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
How do you interpret a positive feedback as an amplification of that? It is an amplification of the Planck Response, of course.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
All your feedbacks are negative when defined as just warming. No distinction between amplifying and suppressing the Planck Response which is the main interest in climate science.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
I think you will have to work out for yourself how processes quantified as +/- W m^2 K^-1 are related to TOA power flux.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
I think we have established that you don’t understand what an amplifying feedback is.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
That’s a response, not a feedback. There’s a difference. Feedback determines the size of the response.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
Some feedbacks are given by the IPCC, Held and Shell 2012, etc. They are positive and negative. And really all that matters in this simplified aspect of Earth system science is the forcing and the response mediated by feedbacks.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
If you can define a net positive feedback, do so. It doesn’t happen under your very limited definition. And I don’t mean individual positive feedbacks, I mean net total.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
An amplifying feedback such as water vapor feedbacks into a larger positive TOA net radiant imbalance. Duh.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Robert I. Ellison
They are called feedbacks by the IPCC and Isaac Held and everyone else for a reason. And the sum of feedbacks in relation to forcing determines the temperature response.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
