Australian Politics Forum - Climate change is here

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #90 - Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:25pm

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Climate sensitivity of 3 °C is not climate change by 3 °C, of course.

Climate sensitivity of 3 °C means a predicted change due to CO2 IF NOTHING ELSE changes.

Keep trying and you'll understand it eventually. The radiative forcing due to CO2 plus methane plus nitrous oxide plus ozone etc is around 4W/m2. This equates to about 1 Celsius degree (1 Kelvin, 1K) for a doubling of CO2. Added to this are the various feedbacks which occur as a result of the CO2 (etc) forcing. These include the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback. Now if we add up all these feedbacks and together with the radiative forcings, we get a sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C.

Now this does not include such unlikely scenarios as the Earth suddenly shifting off its axis due to Iranian Clerics masturbating, enormous stratospheric volcanoes such as the Mt Toba eruption, which happened about 70,000 years ago, huge meteroid impacts, dramatic rapid fluctuations in solar output or God sneezing.

So yes, it doesn't account for any of the above changes.

What I'm describing here is strictly equilibrium climate sensitivity. This applies over about a 100 year timescale. Apart from that, there is "effective climate sensitivity" (ESS) which covers slower factors as major albedo changes such as those due to major ice caps melting. This is less certain than the ECS, but is likely to be around double that of the ECS,

sigh.....

Then there is the transient climate sensitivity(TCS), much beloved of Roy Spencer and his croneys. The TCS is lower than the ECS because it doesn't take into account the "inertia" of ocean heat uptake.

You make it sound like feedback behaviour are known. Far from it. It is still well in the assumption stage from the AGW'rs of an increase rather than a descrease in temp due to feedbacks

Models get cloud feedback wrong, but *only* by 70W/m2 (that’s 19 times larger than the CO2 effect)

Yet another paper shows that the climate models have flaws, described as “gross” “severe” and “disturbing”. The direct effect of doubling CO2 is theoretically 3.7W per square meter. The feedbacks supposedly are 2 -3 times as strong (according to the IPCC). But some scientists are trying to figure out those feedbacks with models which have flaws in the order of 70W per square meter. (How do we find that signal in noise that’s up to 19 times larger?)

Remember climate science is settled: like gravity and a round earth. (Really?)

Miller et al 2012 [abstract] [PDF] find that some models predict clouds to have a net shortwave radiative effect near zero, but observations show it is 70W per square meter. Presumably, cloud shortwave radiative effect means the sunlight bounced upwards off the surface of the clouds and out into space.

What’s especially interesting about this paper is the level of detail. They test shortwave and longwave radiation, precipitation flux, integrated water vapor, liquid water path, cloud fraction, and they have observations from the top of the atmosphere and the surface. With so much information they can test models against short wave and long wave radiation, to see how well the models are really simulating clouds.

We can also see how four models appear to do well on one parameter, only to invariably fail on another. It is easy to see how a not-so-diligent researcher could “verify” some aspect of each and every model but without testing and comparing all the aspects, these single point “successes” are meaningless.

Critics will say this study was just one year in one region (2006 over the African Sahel) but if global climate models don’t understand cloud microphysics and the radiative effect of the condensed water vapor that covers 60% of Planet Earth, then they can’t predict the climate anywhere. And no, the pretense that predicting climate 100 years in advance is somehow easier than predicting a single year is bollocks… 100 years of climate modeling means adding up 100 years of errors. The errors don’t cancel out, they accumulate.

Even though the models are tested below with one year (2006) as the dotted blue line, the blue bands are envelopes of model outputs for 2001-2010, and we would hope that even if the models got the year wrong, the observations would at least fall within the extremes of the decadal predictions, but frequently they didn’t. Indeed the authors note that the decade itself was not that critical saying “virtually the same results are obtained when the GCM solution envelope is stretched to thirty years.”

The four global models tested are: CM2, HADGEM1, CCSM3 & GISS-EH

much more
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/models-get-cloud-feedback-wrong-but-only-by-70w...

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #91 - Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:42pm

OK, you like that one highly focused regional study because it gives low feedbacks but you conveniently ignore the other 30 odd papers that confirm much higher feedbacks. Of course Joanne Nova could never publish anything like that on her personal blog. She'd lose her funding from the Heartland Institute.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #92 - Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:54pm

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Climate sensitivity of 3 °C is not climate change by 3 °C, of course.

Climate sensitivity of 3 °C means a predicted change due to CO2 IF NOTHING ELSE changes.

Keep trying and you'll understand it eventually. The radiative forcing due to CO2 plus methane plus nitrous oxide plus ozone etc is around 4W/m2. This equates to about 1 Celsius degree (1 Kelvin, 1K) for a doubling of CO2. Added to this are the various feedbacks which occur as a result of the CO2 (etc) forcing. These include the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback. Now if we add up all these feedbacks and together with the radiative forcings, we get a sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C.

Now this does not include such unlikely scenarios as the Earth suddenly shifting off its axis due to Iranian Clerics masturbating, enormous stratospheric volcanoes such as the Mt Toba eruption, which happened about 70,000 years ago, huge meteroid impacts, dramatic rapid fluctuations in solar output or God sneezing.

So yes, it doesn't account for any of the above changes.

What I'm describing here is strictly equilibrium climate sensitivity. This applies over about a 100 year timescale. Apart from that, there is "effective climate sensitivity" (ESS) which covers slower factors as major albedo changes such as those due to major ice caps melting. This is less certain than the ECS, but is likely to be around double that of the ECS,

sigh.....

Then there is the transient climate sensitivity(TCS), much beloved of Roy Spencer and his croneys. The TCS is lower than the ECS because it doesn't take into account the "inertia" of ocean heat uptake.

You make it sound like feedback behaviour are known. Far from it. It is still well in the assumption stage from the AGW'rs of an increase rather than a descrease in temp due to feedbacks

Models get cloud feedback wrong, but *only* by 70W/m2 (that’s 19 times larger than the CO2 effect)

Yet another paper shows that the climate models have flaws, described as “gross” “severe” and “disturbing”. The direct effect of doubling CO2 is theoretically 3.7W per square meter. The feedbacks supposedly are 2 -3 times as strong (according to the IPCC). But some scientists are trying to figure out those feedbacks with models which have flaws in the order of 70W per square meter. (How do we find that signal in noise that’s up to 19 times larger?)

Remember climate science is settled: like gravity and a round earth. (Really?)

Miller et al 2012 [abstract] [PDF] find that some models predict clouds to have a net shortwave radiative effect near zero, but observations show it is 70W per square meter. Presumably, cloud shortwave radiative effect means the sunlight bounced upwards off the surface of the clouds and out into space.

What’s especially interesting about this paper is the level of detail. They test shortwave and longwave radiation, precipitation flux, integrated water vapor, liquid water path, cloud fraction, and they have observations from the top of the atmosphere and the surface. With so much information they can test models against short wave and long wave radiation, to see how well the models are really simulating clouds.

We can also see how four models appear to do well on one parameter, only to invariably fail on another. It is easy to see how a not-so-diligent researcher could “verify” some aspect of each and every model but without testing and comparing all the aspects, these single point “successes” are meaningless.

Critics will say this study was just one year in one region (2006 over the African Sahel) but if global climate models don’t understand cloud microphysics and the radiative effect of the condensed water vapor that covers 60% of Planet Earth, then they can’t predict the climate anywhere. And no, the pretense that predicting climate 100 years in advance is somehow easier than predicting a single year is bollocks… 100 years of climate modeling means adding up 100 years of errors. The errors don’t cancel out, they accumulate.

Even though the models are tested below with one year (2006) as the dotted blue line, the blue bands are envelopes of model outputs for 2001-2010, and we would hope that even if the models got the year wrong, the observations would at least fall within the extremes of the decadal predictions, but frequently they didn’t. Indeed the authors note that the decade itself was not that critical saying “virtually the same results are obtained when the GCM solution envelope is stretched to thirty years.”

The four global models tested are: CM2, HADGEM1, CCSM3 & GISS-EH

much more
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/models-get-cloud-feedback-wrong-but-only-by-70w...

Next time post a link to the actual paper, progs.

My bet is you haven't even read it.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #93 - Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:56pm

Want to know how to deliver a study that shows negative feedbacks?

Easy - You too could receive funding from wealthy oil corporations.

Instructions:

1. Read the IPCC Regional Climate Predictions chapter 11, taking particular note of the regions where there is little or no warming. Aha! Let's try the African Sahel region you say. That's a nice white area on the projected temperature map. An excellent starting point for my study. Wink

(I think my bank balance is starting to increase already) If it's a white area on the map, that means that there is a localised area of negative feedback, because it's less than CO2 forcing. (Why? - See the key words in the footnote)

Can I get a loan. I can use my idea as collateral. To hell with my personal integrity, I prefer money.

Actually, you'll find that the original author had no such intention. It was a genuine study intended to quantify cloud feedback.

Footnote:- Sahel: extreme drought, dust storms, highly localised dimming (cooling).

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 17^th, 2012 at 8:30pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #94 - Aug 17^th, 2012 at 8:01pm

MOTR wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Climate sensitivity of 3 °C is not climate change by 3 °C, of course.

Climate sensitivity of 3 °C means a predicted change due to CO2 IF NOTHING ELSE changes.

Keep trying and you'll understand it eventually. The radiative forcing due to CO2 plus methane plus nitrous oxide plus ozone etc is around 4W/m2. This equates to about 1 Celsius degree (1 Kelvin, 1K) for a doubling of CO2. Added to this are the various feedbacks which occur as a result of the CO2 (etc) forcing. These include the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback. Now if we add up all these feedbacks and together with the radiative forcings, we get a sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C.

Now this does not include such unlikely scenarios as the Earth suddenly shifting off its axis due to Iranian Clerics masturbating, enormous stratospheric volcanoes such as the Mt Toba eruption, which happened about 70,000 years ago, huge meteroid impacts, dramatic rapid fluctuations in solar output or God sneezing.

So yes, it doesn't account for any of the above changes.

What I'm describing here is strictly equilibrium climate sensitivity. This applies over about a 100 year timescale. Apart from that, there is "effective climate sensitivity" (ESS) which covers slower factors as major albedo changes such as those due to major ice caps melting. This is less certain than the ECS, but is likely to be around double that of the ECS,

sigh.....

Then there is the transient climate sensitivity(TCS), much beloved of Roy Spencer and his croneys. The TCS is lower than the ECS because it doesn't take into account the "inertia" of ocean heat uptake.

You make it sound like feedback behaviour are known. Far from it. It is still well in the assumption stage from the AGW'rs of an increase rather than a descrease in temp due to feedbacks

Models get cloud feedback wrong, but *only* by 70W/m2 (that’s 19 times larger than the CO2 effect)

Yet another paper shows that the climate models have flaws, described as “gross” “severe” and “disturbing”. The direct effect of doubling CO2 is theoretically 3.7W per square meter. The feedbacks supposedly are 2 -3 times as strong (according to the IPCC). But some scientists are trying to figure out those feedbacks with models which have flaws in the order of 70W per square meter. (How do we find that signal in noise that’s up to 19 times larger?)

Remember climate science is settled: like gravity and a round earth. (Really?)

Miller et al 2012 [abstract] [PDF] find that some models predict clouds to have a net shortwave radiative effect near zero, but observations show it is 70W per square meter. Presumably, cloud shortwave radiative effect means the sunlight bounced upwards off the surface of the clouds and out into space.

What’s especially interesting about this paper is the level of detail. They test shortwave and longwave radiation, precipitation flux, integrated water vapor, liquid water path, cloud fraction, and they have observations from the top of the atmosphere and the surface. With so much information they can test models against short wave and long wave radiation, to see how well the models are really simulating clouds.

We can also see how four models appear to do well on one parameter, only to invariably fail on another. It is easy to see how a not-so-diligent researcher could “verify” some aspect of each and every model but without testing and comparing all the aspects, these single point “successes” are meaningless.

Critics will say this study was just one year in one region (2006 over the African Sahel) but if global climate models don’t understand cloud microphysics and the radiative effect of the condensed water vapor that covers 60% of Planet Earth, then they can’t predict the climate anywhere. And no, the pretense that predicting climate 100 years in advance is somehow easier than predicting a single year is bollocks… 100 years of climate modeling means adding up 100 years of errors. The errors don’t cancel out, they accumulate.

Even though the models are tested below with one year (2006) as the dotted blue line, the blue bands are envelopes of model outputs for 2001-2010, and we would hope that even if the models got the year wrong, the observations would at least fall within the extremes of the decadal predictions, but frequently they didn’t. Indeed the authors note that the decade itself was not that critical saying “virtually the same results are obtained when the GCM solution envelope is stretched to thirty years.”

The four global models tested are: CM2, HADGEM1, CCSM3 & GISS-EH

much more
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/08/models-get-cloud-feedback-wrong-but-only-by-70w...

Next time post a link to the actual paper, progs.

My bet is you haven't even read it.

Next time mind your own dam business.

The link is on the post to all the information needed, including the link to the paper.

Thats the second time in 2 days you trying to use some totalitarian BS with me.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #95 - Aug 17^th, 2012 at 9:19pm

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Climate sensitivity of 3 °C is not climate change by 3 °C, of course.

Climate sensitivity of 3 °C means a predicted change due to CO2 IF NOTHING ELSE changes.

Keep trying and you'll understand it eventually. The radiative forcing due to CO2 plus methane plus nitrous oxide plus ozone etc is around 4W/m2. This equates to about 1 Celsius degree (1 Kelvin, 1K) for a doubling of CO2. Added to this are the various feedbacks which occur as a result of the CO2 (etc) forcing. These include the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback. Now if we add up all these feedbacks and together with the radiative forcings, we get a sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C.

Now this does not include such unlikely scenarios as the Earth suddenly shifting off its axis due to Iranian Clerics masturbating, enormous stratospheric volcanoes such as the Mt Toba eruption, which happened about 70,000 years ago, huge meteroid impacts, dramatic rapid fluctuations in solar output or God sneezing.

So yes, it doesn't account for any of the above changes.

What I'm describing here is strictly equilibrium climate sensitivity. This applies over about a 100 year timescale. Apart from that, there is "effective climate sensitivity" (ESS) which covers slower factors as major albedo changes such as those due to major ice caps melting. This is less certain than the ECS, but is likely to be around double that of the ECS,

sigh.....

Then there is the transient climate sensitivity(TCS), much beloved of Roy Spencer and his croneys. The TCS is lower than the ECS because it doesn't take into account the "inertia" of ocean heat uptake.

Love you, man!

There's nothing like a boffin trying to make sense for the great unwashed.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #96 - Aug 17^th, 2012 at 10:10pm

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

OK, you like that one highly focused regional study because it gives low feedbacks but you conveniently ignore the other 30 odd papers that confirm much higher feedbacks. Of course Joanne Nova could never publish anything like that on her personal blog. She'd lose her funding from the Heartland Institute.

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

Want to know how to deliver a study that shows negative feedbacks?

Easy - You too could receive funding from wealthy oil corporations.

Instructions:

1. Read the IPCC Regional Climate Predictions chapter 11, taking particular note of the regions where there is little or no warming. Aha! Let's try the African Sahel region you say. That's a nice white area on the projected temperature map. An excellent starting point for my study. Wink

(I think my bank balance is starting to increase already) If it's a white area on the map, that means that there is a localised area of negative feedback, because it's less than CO2 forcing. (Why? - See the key words in the footnote)

Can I get a loan. I can use my idea as collateral. To hell with my personal integrity, I prefer money.

Actually, you'll find that the original author had no such intention. It was a genuine study intended to quantify cloud feedback.

Footnote:- Sahel: extreme drought, dust storms, highly localised dimming (cooling).

I am pretty sure that cloud feedback, regardless of where in the world, would work pretty much the same as anywhere in the world.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought Reply #97 - Aug 17^th, 2012 at 10:57pm You really don't know clouds at all.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #98 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 3:14am

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

OK, you like that one highly focused regional study because it gives low feedbacks but you conveniently ignore the other 30 odd papers that confirm much higher feedbacks. Of course Joanne Nova could never publish anything like that on her personal blog. She'd lose her funding from the Heartland Institute.

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

Want to know how to deliver a study that shows negative feedbacks?

Easy - You too could receive funding from wealthy oil corporations.

Instructions:

1. Read the IPCC Regional Climate Predictions chapter 11, taking particular note of the regions where there is little or no warming. Aha! Let's try the African Sahel region you say. That's a nice white area on the projected temperature map. An excellent starting point for my study. Wink

(I think my bank balance is starting to increase already) If it's a white area on the map, that means that there is a localised area of negative feedback, because it's less than CO2 forcing. (Why? - See the key words in the footnote)

Can I get a loan. I can use my idea as collateral. To hell with my personal integrity, I prefer money.

Actually, you'll find that the original author had no such intention. It was a genuine study intended to quantify cloud feedback.

Footnote:- Sahel: extreme drought, dust storms, highly localised dimming (cooling).

I am pretty sure that cloud feedback, regardless of where in the world, would work pretty much the same as anywhere in the world.

Have you read the paper yet, progs?

Does the paper extrapolate beyond the West African Sahel?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 18^th, 2012 at 3:22am by MOTR »

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #99 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 8:28am

MOTR wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 3:14am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

OK, you like that one highly focused regional study because it gives low feedbacks but you conveniently ignore the other 30 odd papers that confirm much higher feedbacks. Of course Joanne Nova could never publish anything like that on her personal blog. She'd lose her funding from the Heartland Institute.

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

Want to know how to deliver a study that shows negative feedbacks?

Easy - You too could receive funding from wealthy oil corporations.

Instructions:

1. Read the IPCC Regional Climate Predictions chapter 11, taking particular note of the regions where there is little or no warming. Aha! Let's try the African Sahel region you say. That's a nice white area on the projected temperature map. An excellent starting point for my study. Wink

(I think my bank balance is starting to increase already) If it's a white area on the map, that means that there is a localised area of negative feedback, because it's less than CO2 forcing. (Why? - See the key words in the footnote)

Can I get a loan. I can use my idea as collateral. To hell with my personal integrity, I prefer money.

Actually, you'll find that the original author had no such intention. It was a genuine study intended to quantify cloud feedback.

Footnote:- Sahel: extreme drought, dust storms, highly localised dimming (cooling).

I am pretty sure that cloud feedback, regardless of where in the world, would work pretty much the same as anywhere in the world.

Have you read the paper yet, progs?

Does the paper extrapolate beyond the West African Sahel?

Why do you continue to ask round about questions. Read it for yourself, then make your statement.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought Reply #100 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 8:30am muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 10:57pm: You really don't know clouds at all. Do you believe a like for like cloud works differently depending on where on earth. Like for like in every way.
Back to top	IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #101 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 9:03am

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 8:28am:

MOTR wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 3:14am:

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

OK, you like that one highly focused regional study because it gives low feedbacks but you conveniently ignore the other 30 odd papers that confirm much higher feedbacks. Of course Joanne Nova could never publish anything like that on her personal blog. She'd lose her funding from the Heartland Institute.

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

Want to know how to deliver a study that shows negative feedbacks?

Easy - You too could receive funding from wealthy oil corporations.

Instructions:

1. Read the IPCC Regional Climate Predictions chapter 11, taking particular note of the regions where there is little or no warming. Aha! Let's try the African Sahel region you say. That's a nice white area on the projected temperature map. An excellent starting point for my study. Wink

(I think my bank balance is starting to increase already) If it's a white area on the map, that means that there is a localised area of negative feedback, because it's less than CO2 forcing. (Why? - See the key words in the footnote)

Can I get a loan. I can use my idea as collateral. To hell with my personal integrity, I prefer money.

Actually, you'll find that the original author had no such intention. It was a genuine study intended to quantify cloud feedback.

Footnote:- Sahel: extreme drought, dust storms, highly localised dimming (cooling).

I am pretty sure that cloud feedback, regardless of where in the world, would work pretty much the same as anywhere in the world.

Have you read the paper yet, progs?

Does the paper extrapolate beyond the West African Sahel?

Why do you continue to ask round about questions. Read it for yourself, then make your statement.

Why do you continue to avoid answering direct questions. What's difficult about telling us how you believe this paper extends our knowledge of cloud radiative forcing.

Back to top

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #102 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 8:44pm

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 8:30am:

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 10:57pm:

You really don't know clouds at all. Wink

Do you believe a like for like cloud works differently depending on where on earth. Like for like in every way.

There is no such thing. There is a great deal of variation in the nature of cloud radiative feedbacks, even at the same location. That's why we have to conduct studies in many different environments and locations to determine the net effect of cloud feedbacks.

From Tellus (1981), 33,438-443

Surface temperature sensitivities from cloud cover variations in the Hummel-Kuhn radiative-convective model with three different cloud approximations - Hummel, JR

Quote:

Both cloud amount and height are known to affect surface temperature...... as the amount of clouds increases, the planetary albedo increases and the surface temperature decreases (e.g. Schneider, 1972). The surface temperature also responds to changes in cloud height, the nature of the response (i.e. whether the surface temperature increases or decreases) depending on the cloud and its original height (e.g. Manabe and Wetherald, 1967).

Also see:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS3506.1
Quote:

On the Role of Moist Processes in Tropical Intraseasonal Variability: Cloud–Radiation and Moisture–Convection Feedbacks
Sandrine Bony

Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, CNRS, Paris, France

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 18^th, 2012 at 8:50pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought
Reply #103 - Aug 19^th, 2012 at 3:35am

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 10:10pm:

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

OK, you like that one highly focused regional study because it gives low feedbacks but you conveniently ignore the other 30 odd papers that confirm much higher feedbacks. Of course Joanne Nova could never publish anything like that on her personal blog. She'd lose her funding from the Heartland Institute.

muso wrote on Aug 17^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:

Want to know how to deliver a study that shows negative feedbacks?

Easy - You too could receive funding from wealthy oil corporations.

Instructions:

1. Read the IPCC Regional Climate Predictions chapter 11, taking particular note of the regions where there is little or no warming. Aha! Let's try the African Sahel region you say. That's a nice white area on the projected temperature map. An excellent starting point for my study. Wink

(I think my bank balance is starting to increase already) If it's a white area on the map, that means that there is a localised area of negative feedback, because it's less than CO2 forcing. (Why? - See the key words in the footnote)

Can I get a loan. I can use my idea as collateral. To hell with my personal integrity, I prefer money.

Actually, you'll find that the original author had no such intention. It was a genuine study intended to quantify cloud feedback.

Footnote:- Sahel: extreme drought, dust storms, highly localised dimming (cooling).

I am pretty sure that cloud feedback, regardless of where in the world, would work pretty much the same as anywhere in the world

.

Lol, you would never catch tony abbott saying such a thing as he would be attacked mercilessly! Such an ignorant statement would kill the Liberal Party, which is why deniers refrain from being specific if they are in positions of power!!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Climate change is here — and worse than we thought Reply #104 - Aug 19^th, 2012 at 7:38am I'd rather focus on trying to explain how it works rather than ridiculing people for making daft statements. We all do that. Mind you, many of us correct ourselves afterwards.
Back to top	« Last Edit: Aug 19^th, 2012 at 7:49am by muso » 1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged