Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2010 16:26:38 GMT
We here so much about how insolation feedbacks are too weak to have caused the changes in climate we have seen.
However, is there any study that really deals with that issue and deals with the issue of improperly using proxies for calculating feedbacks.
After all the process of the globe taking in radiation energy and then radiating energy outwards is a stream of cause and effects.
Thus a perturbation further upstream would have feedbacks larger than feedbacks further downstream as it would include all the downstream feedbacks, not just feedbacks occurring at the tailend of the process.
When we talk in terms of feedbacks for variations in CO2 everything that changes the effect of the initial forcing is included as a feedback including the kitchen sink.
Yet the forcing for AGW occurs well up in the atmosphere at the furthest tailend of the cause and effect process. The feedbacks from CO2 would logically be lesser than feedbacks that occur closer to the surface and not include any feedbacks from an initial perturbation of incoming SW (though a feedback may serve to affect incoming SW, incoming SW itself not only has its own feedbacks but also includes feedbacks from any change it generates in outgoing IR.
If we look at this issue from a cycle standpoint you have numerous processes incoming SW, atmosphere SW reflection, cloud SW reflection, surface SW reflection, atmosphere SW absorption, cloud SW absorption, surface terrestrial SW absorption, surface water absorption (listed as different because of difference in physics).
On the outgoing side you have surface IR emission, atmosphere IR emission, cloud IR emission, conduction of heat from surface to atmosphere, evaporation of water from the surface, evaporation of water from clouds, latent heat from water vapor to the atmosphere from condensation, cloud IR absorption, atmosphere IR absorption by water vapor, atmospheric IR absorption by CO2 (listed separately because of different physics).
Variations of any of these is going to generate feedbacks. And if those feedbacks change any figure in high altitude CO2 IR absorption it will also include feedbacks from that.
In other words SW flux feedbacks include feedbacks generated in changes in CO2 plus the feedbacks it generates in every other part of the process.
Thus a feedback analysis of say a volcanic eruption that disrupts SW would overstate the feedbacks generated from a perturbation in CO2 IR absorption.
Now I am just a layman so I am not suggesting that this has to be true, just that it appears logical.
If I am wrong. . . . why?
However, is there any study that really deals with that issue and deals with the issue of improperly using proxies for calculating feedbacks.
After all the process of the globe taking in radiation energy and then radiating energy outwards is a stream of cause and effects.
Thus a perturbation further upstream would have feedbacks larger than feedbacks further downstream as it would include all the downstream feedbacks, not just feedbacks occurring at the tailend of the process.
When we talk in terms of feedbacks for variations in CO2 everything that changes the effect of the initial forcing is included as a feedback including the kitchen sink.
Yet the forcing for AGW occurs well up in the atmosphere at the furthest tailend of the cause and effect process. The feedbacks from CO2 would logically be lesser than feedbacks that occur closer to the surface and not include any feedbacks from an initial perturbation of incoming SW (though a feedback may serve to affect incoming SW, incoming SW itself not only has its own feedbacks but also includes feedbacks from any change it generates in outgoing IR.
If we look at this issue from a cycle standpoint you have numerous processes incoming SW, atmosphere SW reflection, cloud SW reflection, surface SW reflection, atmosphere SW absorption, cloud SW absorption, surface terrestrial SW absorption, surface water absorption (listed as different because of difference in physics).
On the outgoing side you have surface IR emission, atmosphere IR emission, cloud IR emission, conduction of heat from surface to atmosphere, evaporation of water from the surface, evaporation of water from clouds, latent heat from water vapor to the atmosphere from condensation, cloud IR absorption, atmosphere IR absorption by water vapor, atmospheric IR absorption by CO2 (listed separately because of different physics).
Variations of any of these is going to generate feedbacks. And if those feedbacks change any figure in high altitude CO2 IR absorption it will also include feedbacks from that.
In other words SW flux feedbacks include feedbacks generated in changes in CO2 plus the feedbacks it generates in every other part of the process.
Thus a feedback analysis of say a volcanic eruption that disrupts SW would overstate the feedbacks generated from a perturbation in CO2 IR absorption.
Now I am just a layman so I am not suggesting that this has to be true, just that it appears logical.
If I am wrong. . . . why?