Comments for Climate Etc.

What does it amplify? It amplifies the response. Also known as a positive feedback.

n this cartoon universe we have a forcing of 3.7 W/m2 and feedbacks of – 3.7 W/m2 at a specific temperature.

ECS = ERF/total feedbacks

So yes – net feedbacls are negative. Always – except perhaps in glacial/interglacial transitions.

Compete circle. It is loose language that confuses you. You have one word for feedback and response and therefore can’t distinguish them. The size of the response depends on the net feedback.

Yes, because you don’t understand the conventional circuit definition where there can be a net positive feedback (see feedback loop).

It amplifies radiant imbalances at TOA that are the origin of warming or cooling. But net feedbacks necessarily reduce radiant imbalances to zero at energy equilibrium.

Forcing causes changes in the system that feedback into energy imbalances at toa. That’s the ‘conventional’ understanding.

No it is not ‘loose language – it is how feedbacks to forcing work. ECS is the temperature at which 3.7 W/m2 is negated.

ECS = ERF/total feedbacks – at an energy equilibrium at TOA.

This is beyond a joke even for me.

It’s the response that reduces the imbalance when you think about it. You don’t need a feedback, just the Planck Response. Confused yet?

The system responds to forcing.

You have one word for two completely different things. You can have a response without a feedback and that reduces the imbalance too.

Not even close – you can’t have a forcing without it causing a temperature change – and multiple feedbacks from the response cancels out the forcing at a specific temperature..

The concept of a no-feedback response makes your head explode, but for others it has been normal. No one complained here when it was talked about in detail, but you would have had a conniption at this posting.
https://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/

Reblogged this on <a href="http://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2018/12/28/politics-of-climate-expertise/" rel="nofollow">Utopia - you are standing in it!</a>.

The Planck response is the temperature increase considering only the temperature (Plank) feedback. In reality of course all feedbacks happen concurrently.

ECS(Planck response) = ERF/Planck feedback = 3.7 Wm^-2 / 3.2 W m^-2 k^-1 = 1.2 K

Consistent with the IPCC, Isaac Held, the University of Albany post graduate climate modelling course notes and the Judith Curry blog post. You are the odd one out #jiminy and it is all because the temperature (Planck) feedback doesn’t seem to be real for you. A very odd oversight that you cling to with aberrant tenacity.

Do you have a different mathematical model? Any other standard means of calculating the Planck response for the forcing and the Planck feedback?

Does a warmer planet emit exponentially more IR or not?

You know what the Planck Response is (dF/λo), and maybe you know what the actual response is (dF/λ), where F is the forcing, and maybe you even understand that when the actual response is larger than the Planck Response, there has been a positive feedback (λ < λo), and when it is less there is a negative feedback, and when it is the same, there has been no feedback (λ=λo). This is not a difficult thing to understand. Which part do you have trouble with?