|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 22, 2009 0:55:57 GMT
You've never studied feedback or taken a systems/controls class, I take it? Or does Climate Science have its own rules for positive and negative feedback that are not used by, say, mechanical engineers? If the earth didn't have negative feedback in its climate it would long since have turned into a hothouse like Venus. Yes climate feedbacks are not the same as feedbacks in say electronics. A climate feedback is one by which a change in temperature causes a change in forcing (which will thereby causing a further change in temperature). The unit for a climate feedback can be given in wm-2/C Ie A forcing is measured in wm-2 Climate sensitivity is measured in degrees C/wm-2 A feedback is measured in wm-2/degreeC A positive feedback is literally a feedback which is above zero (ie Xwm-2/C where X > 0) I think you just proved Poitsplace's point
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 22, 2009 11:00:04 GMT
You've never studied feedback or taken a systems/controls class, I take it? Or does Climate Science have its own rules for positive and negative feedback that are not used by, say, mechanical engineers? If the earth didn't have negative feedback in its climate it would long since have turned into a hothouse like Venus. Yeah, it's an annoying bit of ignorance on the AGW camp's part. We're expected to believe this world is dominated by very strong positive feedback but that temperatures stayed rock solid for about 1000 years...and that it somehow didn't get permanently locked into a hot or cold state in its early history. It would be better to stop repeating this lie. At the cold extreme, it appears that the earth can get locked in cold, but that cold weather removes water from the cycle which cuts down on CO2 sequestration. Volcanic CO2 emissions can then build up to break out of the cold. At the warm end, the feedbacks from the hydrological cycle mean that the warming from other sources is 2 to 3 times what it would be if the hydrological cycle were kept the same. That's it. End of story. The, as you put it, "very strong positive feedbacks" are balanced by something called Stephan-Boltzmann's equation where the earth gets rid of its heat at a rate proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. This is a huge dampener against "very strong positive feedbacks" even if such things exist.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 22, 2009 21:07:23 GMT
Yeah, it's an annoying bit of ignorance on the AGW camp's part. We're expected to believe this world is dominated by very strong positive feedback but that temperatures stayed rock solid for about 1000 years...and that it somehow didn't get permanently locked into a hot or cold state in its early history. It would be better to stop repeating this lie. At the cold extreme, it appears that the earth can get locked in cold, but that cold weather removes water from the cycle which cuts down on CO2 sequestration. Volcanic CO2 emissions can then build up to break out of the cold. At the warm end, the feedbacks from the hydrological cycle mean that the warming from other sources is 2 to 3 times what it would be if the hydrological cycle were kept the same. That's it. End of story. The, as you put it, "very strong positive feedbacks" are balanced by something called Stephan-Boltzmann's equation where the earth gets rid of its heat at a rate proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. This is a huge dampener against "very strong positive feedbacks" even if such things exist. "At the warm end, the feedbacks from the hydrological cycle mean that the warming from other sources is 2 to 3 times what it would be if the hydrological cycle were kept the same. That's it. End of story."There is all this doubt about the effect of clouds - even in the AR4 IPCC report and all along the 'science was settled' ! you could save climatologists an awful lot of funds - just pass on your understanding of the simplicity of the hydrological cycle and the radiative effects of clouds.
|
|
|
Post by LakeEffectKing on Apr 22, 2009 22:10:37 GMT
It would be better to stop repeating this lie. At the cold extreme, it appears that the earth can get locked in cold, but that cold weather removes water from the cycle which cuts down on CO2 sequestration. Volcanic CO2 emissions can then build up to break out of the cold. At the warm end, the feedbacks from the hydrological cycle mean that the warming from other sources is 2 to 3 times what it would be if the hydrological cycle were kept the same. That's it. End of story. The, as you put it, "very strong positive feedbacks" are balanced by something called Stephan-Boltzmann's equation where the earth gets rid of its heat at a rate proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. This is a huge dampener against "very strong positive feedbacks" even if such things exist. "At the warm end, the feedbacks from the hydrological cycle mean that the warming from other sources is 2 to 3 times what it would be if the hydrological cycle were kept the same. That's it. End of story."There is all this doubt about the effect of clouds - even in the AR4 IPCC report and all along the 'science was settled' ! you could save climatologists an awful lot of funds - just pass on your understanding of the simplicity of the hydrological cycle and the radiative effects of clouds. LOL! That was the first thing that came to my mind when I read it! There is an INCREDIBLE amount of doubt to the entire science of raditive forcing wrt clouds, their level, and various condensation nuclei... The IPCC was right in noting that. They should have included solar, ENSO, PDO, etc. as part of that "doubt".
|
|