|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 6, 2017 13:36:30 GMT
Abstract Cloud phase improvements in a state-of-the-art climate model produce a large 1.5 K increase in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, the surface warming in response to instantaneously doubled CO2) via extratropical shortwave cloud feedbacks. Here, we show that the same model improvements produce only a small surface warming increase in a realistic 21st century emissions scenario. The small 21st century warming increase is attributed to extratropical ocean heat uptake. Southern Ocean mean-state circulation takes up heat while a slowdown in North Atlantic circulation acts as a feedback to slow surface warming. Persistent heat uptake by extratropical oceans implies that extratropical cloud biases may not be as important to 21st century warming as biases in other regions. Observational constraints on cloud phase and shortwave radiation which produce a large ECS increase do not imply large changes in 21st century warming. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076339/abstractA pity that the extratropical oceans do not show signs of warming. Perhaps the good scientists would like to demonstrate with a simple laboratory experiment: 1. Heating of a volume of water by low levels of infrared radiation in the CO2 emission spectrum 2. Heating of a volume of water by blowing warm air across the surface Well of course they won't because both effects cool the volume of water and that would mean that their erudite well crafted nicely worded paper is based on an invalid assumption. That would never do. Author says shortwave radiation. The long wave radiation doesn't warm water. Been a long time since I have read a paper that the author actually recognizes this!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 6, 2017 15:43:16 GMT
A pity that the extratropical oceans do not show signs of warming. Perhaps the good scientists would like to demonstrate with a simple laboratory experiment: 1. Heating of a volume of water by low levels of infrared radiation in the CO2 emission spectrum 2. Heating of a volume of water by blowing warm air across the surface Well of course they won't because both effects cool the volume of water and that would mean that their erudite well crafted nicely worded paper is based on an invalid assumption. That would never do. Author says shortwave radiation. The long wave radiation doesn't warm water. Been a long time since I have read a paper that the author actually recognizes this! I will re-post a simple comparison. Could it be that this is why the cloud data updates have not taken place? I hate being cynical.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 6, 2017 18:57:14 GMT
Gosh, who would have ever thought??
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 6, 2017 19:32:48 GMT
Gosh, who would have ever thought?? Indeed. Clear sky short wave sunlight water gets warmer -> Water evaporates at higher rate, clouds form at similar increasing rate -->> Cloudy sky albedo rises, water evaporation leads to cooling water --->>> Cooling water leads to reduced evaporation, leads to reduced cloudiness and albedo --->>>> Repeat as annual cycle
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Dec 6, 2017 23:04:33 GMT
Thanks, but that room will still cost ya $50.00 per night. I meant Acid, Sig. Acid, what's your going rate? At the moment I'm bartering in time, its what I lack most right now..... Can I have 2 days?? (Sig is way cleverer then me....π)
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 8, 2017 21:28:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 9, 2017 14:28:36 GMT
Uncertainty means your only guessing (WAG). SWAG suggests you've built a model.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Dec 9, 2017 15:07:01 GMT
Uncertainty means your only guessing (WAG). SWAG suggests you've built a model. Iβm uncertain that this stuff works past 10 days.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 9, 2017 15:14:23 GMT
Uncertainty means your only guessing (WAG). SWAG suggests you've built a model. Iβm uncertain that this stuff works past 10 days. Never let it be said that uncertainty slowed down faith.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 10, 2017 13:42:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 10, 2017 15:28:56 GMT
A pity that the author points out that CO2 has been tens of times higher in the past and the Earth has dropped into an ice age - then tries to say that a rise from 280 to 400 is going to cause warming. At first it seemed an even handed approach to the subject, but then wandered into CO2 is a driver of warming - based on no correlation just falsified hypotheses.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Dec 10, 2017 20:29:21 GMT
A pity that the author points out that CO2 has been tens of times higher in the past and the Earth has dropped into an ice age - then tries to say that a rise from 280 to 400 is going to cause warming. At first it seemed an even handed approach to the subject, but then wandered into CO2 is a driver of warming - based on no correlation just falsified hypotheses. But, he can point to that sentence and claim heβs no denier while presenting a boat load of info and ideas the MSM would never print. I forwarded it to my daughter because she struggles with my attitude about CAGW.
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Dec 11, 2017 14:03:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Dec 11, 2017 19:45:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 11, 2017 20:32:38 GMT
|
|