|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 3, 2011 17:31:29 GMT
you are not describing positive feedbacks. Negative feedbacks in nature strive for equilibriumYou are confusing positive feedback with a "runaway" effect. Equilibrium was achieved during the ice ages - despite the fact that feedback must have been positive. No glc, you are confused. Negative feedback is what keeps the climate stable. I located a tutorial for you: |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Feb 4, 2011 4:46:29 GMT
This ENSO climate I forecasted for 2010-11 will be historic in the record levels of precipitation and cold for the world; however, we will enter another climate phase after August 2011 that will return us to the last remaining years of solar-forced global warming. Even though some forecasters like Bastardi are forecasting colder winters to follow next year and in 2013, I disagree according to my astronomic calculations. Generally, I am forecasting a brief and above average warmer winter ahead in the northern hemisphere for Winter 2012 and winter 2013 before we get another anomalous colder-than-normal winter in the year 2014. So we can expect a break from the last two colder-than average winter seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 4, 2011 4:51:20 GMT
[ Generally, I am forecasting a brief and above average warmer winter ahead in the northern hemisphere for Winter 2012 and winter 2013 before we get another anomalous colder-than-normal winter in the year 2014. So we can expect a break from the last two colder-than average winter seasons. Oh great, more AGW harping during an election cycle.  |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 4, 2011 5:08:11 GMT
[ Generally, I am forecasting a brief and above average warmer winter ahead in the northern hemisphere for Winter 2012 and winter 2013 before we get another anomalous colder-than-normal winter in the year 2014. So we can expect a break from the last two colder-than average winter seasons. Oh great, more AGW harping during an election cycle. As someone who lives with climate changing daily, I have to respectfully disagree with Astromet concerning his forcast. I went back through regional records and proxy data to see what happened in my area during a period of low solar activity. It seems Svensmarks theory is about the only thing that explains what happens. Cold and wet winters.......year after year....and not very warm summers. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 4, 2011 5:21:15 GMT
Oh great, more AGW harping during an election cycle. As someone who lives with climate changing daily, I have to respectfully disagree with Astromet concerning his forcast. I went back through regional records and proxy data to see what happened in my area during a period of low solar activity. It seems Svensmarks theory is about the only thing that explains what happens. Cold and wet winters.......year after year....and not very warm summers. Well I would agree with your assessment but you know that is not what we will get in the news. And the public will buy it. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Feb 4, 2011 8:50:53 GMT
Oh great, more AGW harping during an election cycle. As someone who lives with climate changing daily, I have to respectfully disagree with Astromet concerning his forcast. I went back through regional records and proxy data to see what happened in my area during a period of low solar activity. It seems Svensmarks theory is about the only thing that explains what happens. Cold and wet winters.......year after year....and not very warm summers. Yet, you must remember that the Sun's activity does not require a long time to pick back up. It has always been my forecast for years now that we can expect an increase in sunspots just after 2010, and my solar forecast has not changed. I expect to see increasing sunspot activity to start this year, and to continue into 2012, 2013 and 2014. As for what "warmists" will make of it - well that's not a concern for me since all of that is simply ideology, not science, and has no bearing on the fact that our climate and weather is forced from space. We are emerging out of a sick, narcissistic, self-absorbed ideological age that has done nothing but waste time. That will be its legacy. I'm sure that some of the ideologues will try to make the remaining global warming cycle into another mania, but again, all they do is waste time. Most of the general public will believe what they will, but those who are educated know that AGW is b.s. and always has been. As for what is ahead - that's global cooling in the long run. It is coming and that is what I have been preparing for. It is what I've seen coming astronomically - and it will arrive: on time. However, I continue to state that we have about six (6) years left of what is a 36-year solar-forced global warming cycle that began in 1980-81. According to my calculations, at least four (4) of the six remaining years will feature warmer-than normal-temperatures during the winter seasons in both hemispheres. After the 36-yr. global warming cycle is complete, it will be the year 2017, and it is in that year we officially begin a global cooling cycle that will last to the year 2052-53 and which will peak in strength during the decade of the 2030s. Next winter, according to my calculations, will be warmer than this current winter, though the spring and summer of 2011 will be cooler than normal. After August 2011, La Nina will phase out and the Sun will have awakened. We will then go into a warming climate with ENSO values back to neutral. And, again, it was my forecast which stated that this past ENSO would be historic & record-breaking. Climate science will study this ENSO for years to come. The coming two winters will be shorter than usual and warmer than the past two winters have been, and the Sun is about to emerge out of its minimum state. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 4, 2011 13:18:26 GMT
So we can expect a break from the last two colder-than average winter seasons.
But the last 2 winters haven't been colder than average. According to the UAH satellite record the 2009/2010 winter (Dec-Feb) was one of the warmest on record. Although cooler than last year, the current winter still looks set to be warmer than most winters in the 1980s and 1990s.
Now, I hope you're not going to tell me you were only referring to the US because that would be cherry-picking and I know that a scientist such as yourself wouldn't do such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 4, 2011 17:40:50 GMT
So we can expect a break from the last two colder-than average winter seasons.But the last 2 winters haven't been colder than average. According to the UAH satellite record the 2009/2010 winter (Dec-Feb) was one of the warmest on record. Although cooler than last year, the current winter still looks set to be warmer than most winters in the 1980s and 1990s. Now, I hope you're not going to tell me you were only referring to the US because that would be cherry-picking and I know that a scientist such as yourself wouldn't do such a thing. But cherry picking the Arctic, which isn't much bigger than the U.S. and making up temperatures where none exist, is legitimate. Uh huh. However, we do have 20 years of bloviating AGW climate scientists telling us the U.S. would continue to warm. Yes it is interesting how cherry picking can affect averages and give false impressions: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/03/the-temperature-claims-of-2010/ |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 4, 2011 17:54:41 GMT
No glc, you are confused. Negative feedback is what keeps the climate stable
The general formula for temperature change with feedbacks is as follows:
Temp change = deltaT/(1-F)
where deltaT is the no feedback change and F is the feedback factor. In the case of CO2 doubling deltaT is around 1 deg C.
If the feedback factor (F) is positive then the denominator in the above formula will decrease and the temperature change will increase. If F is negative then the reverse will happen. If F = 1 then we have instability.
During the last ice age the earth's temeprature fell by more than 5 degrees C. It is inconceivable that the sun was solely responsible for the for all of this change. Much more likely is that the growth of ice sheets refelcted more solar energy from the earth while the redution in ghgs (water vapour and CO2) also caused the earth's temerpature to drop. These are positive feedbacks in that they enhanced the initial forcing effect.
Incidentally, for -1 < F < 1 it can be shown that the term 1/(1-F) can be expanded as follows:
1/(1-F) = 1 + F + F2 + F3 + F4 ..............
i.e. in agreement with my convergent series (F=0.5) in an earlier post.
PS I can't read your tutorial but it doesn't matter anyway as it's perfectly possible to have positive feedback and stable climate. If only negative feedback is possible why are Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen going to so much trouble to show that feedbacks from GHG forcing are positive.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 4, 2011 22:28:28 GMT
As someone who lives with climate changing daily, I have to respectfully disagree with Astromet concerning his forcast. I went back through regional records and proxy data to see what happened in my area during a period of low solar activity. It seems Svensmarks theory is about the only thing that explains what happens. Cold and wet winters.......year after year....and not very warm summers. Yet, you must remember that the Sun's activity does not require a long time to pick back up. It has always been my forecast for years now that we can expect an increase in sunspots just after 2010, and my solar forecast has not changed. I expect to see increasing sunspot activity to start this year, and to continue into 2012, 2013 and 2014. Is this more false memory syndrome? Who said in 2006  That's just a little bit patronising. But because you've mangled the jargon a bit I suspect glc and I are going to assume that you probably don't have a mathematics education. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 4, 2011 23:43:59 GMT
No glc, you are confused. Negative feedback is what keeps the climate stableThe general formula for temperature change with feedbacks is as follows: Temp change = deltaT/(1-F) where deltaT is the no feedback change and F is the feedback factor. In the case of CO2 doubling deltaT is around 1 deg C. If the feedback factor (F) is positive then the denominator in the above formula will decrease and the temperature change will increase. If F is negative then the reverse will happen. If F = 1 then we have instability. During the last ice age the earth's temeprature fell by more than 5 degrees C. It is inconceivable that the sun was solely responsible for the for all of this change. Much more likely is that the growth of ice sheets refelcted more solar energy from the earth while the redution in ghgs (water vapour and CO2) also caused the earth's temerpature to drop. These are positive feedbacks in that they enhanced the initial forcing effect. Incidentally, for -1 < F < 1 it can be shown that the term 1/(1-F) can be expanded as follows: 1/(1-F) = 1 + F + F 2 + F 3 + F 4 .............. i.e. in agreement with my convergent series (F=0.5) in an earlier post. PS I can't read your tutorial but it doesn't matter anyway as it's perfectly possible to have positive feedback and stable climate. If only negative feedback is possible why are Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen going to so much trouble to show that feedbacks from GHG forcing are positive. If only negative feedback is possible why are Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen going to so much trouble to show that feedbacks from GHG forcing are positive.
Wow, you truly don't know the difference between negative and positive feedback. The norm in nature is negative feedback. To promote the idea of positive feedback in climate (unnatural), it had to be shown the climate has been stable prior to the 20th century; in rides Michael Mann. Name as many things in nature you can that is driven by positive feedback. When you bounce a ball on the ground does it continue to bounce higher and higher? |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Feb 5, 2011 0:25:03 GMT
Yet, you must remember that the Sun's activity does not require a long time to pick back up. It has always been my forecast for years now that we can expect an increase in sunspots just after 2010, and my solar forecast has not changed. That's just a little bit patronising. But because you've mangled the jargon a bit I suspect glc and I are going to assume that you probably don't have a mathematics education. Assume what you want. I do not take you seriously at all since you clearly are not in possession of common sense, much less a mathematics education, to go around whining as you do. |
|
koz
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by koz on Feb 5, 2011 14:32:47 GMT
No glc, you are confused. Negative feedback is what keeps the climate stableThe general formula for temperature change with feedbacks is as follows: Temp change = deltaT/(1-F) where deltaT is the no feedback change and F is the feedback factor. In the case of CO2 doubling deltaT is around 1 deg C. If the feedback factor (F) is positive then the denominator in the above formula will decrease and the temperature change will increase. If F is negative then the reverse will happen. If F = 1 then we have instability. glc, What is deltaT in your equation? I've never seen an equation where deltaT isn't temperature change. So you've set up an equation where a positive temperature change can be a temperature change. And it is possible for a temperature change to cause no temperature change. F=1 is not instability, it's an impossibility. You also mention F values between -1 and 1. And guess what? All of those values are NEGATIVE feedbacks. F would have to be above 1 in your (invalid) equation. The only values of F that would make your equation valid is F = 0 or F = -2. That would make it Temperature Change = deltaT. You should seriously rethink your grasp of mathematics. koz. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 6, 2011 17:57:28 GMT
No glc, you are confused. Negative feedback is what keeps the climate stableThe general formula for temperature change with feedbacks is as follows: Temp change = deltaT/(1-F) where deltaT is the no feedback change and F is the feedback factor. In the case of CO2 doubling deltaT is around 1 deg C. If the feedback factor (F) is positive then the denominator in the above formula will decrease and the temperature change will increase. If F is negative then the reverse will happen. If F = 1 then we have instability. glc, What is deltaT in your equation? I've never seen an equation where deltaT isn't temperature change. So you've set up an equation where a positive temperature change can be a temperature change. And it is possible for a temperature change to cause no temperature change. F=1 is not instability, it's an impossibility. You also mention F values between -1 and 1. And guess what? All of those values are NEGATIVE feedbacks. F would have to be above 1 in your (invalid) equation. The only values of F that would make your equation valid is F = 0 or F = -2. That would make it Temperature Change = deltaT. You should seriously rethink your grasp of mathematics. koz. glc defined deltaT as the estimated temperature change before feedbacks. His maths is fine. This could be calculated by using the basic Stephan-Boltzmann equation: Radiated emission = emissivity x Boltzmann constant x Temp to the power 4 For a doubling of CO2 the radiated emission from the earth would be cut by about 3.7W/m^2 so T would have to rise a bit to keep the radiated emission matching the absorption (which is relatively constant). deltaT would be the rise in T required to solve the above equation and is roughly 1C for a doubling of CO2. A value of F=0.5 would give you a real temperature change of twice your initial deltaT guesstimate. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 6, 2011 18:05:42 GMT
astromet,
Your own common sense is leading you in the wrong direction. If you do not have the "sense" to detect your faulty prognostications, as I have regularly highlighted, then you will not develop a useful "common sense".
A mathematics education is a matter of fact, not opinion. I have one as can be proven by a couple of bits of paper in my desk drawer. Whether it is worth anything is another question! You do not have one so shouldn't pretend you do.
|
|
