tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post8553004118281019932..comments2023-06-01T16:34:22.422+10:00Comments on moyhu: More on climate feedbackNick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-68012494548294231392016-09-09T02:36:10.438+10:002016-09-09T02:36:10.438+10:00W m-2 K-1, equation is in the first full paragraph...W m-2 K-1, equation is in the first full paragraph on p3357 here:<br />https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/bjs0601.pdfMarkRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07010058907167894548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-65363251302424898612016-09-09T00:42:29.454+10:002016-09-09T00:42:29.454+10:00Nick, Could you define what they mean by Effective...Nick, Could you define what they mean by Effective Sensitivity in Table 1 or simply give the units?<br />Thanks in advance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05024509207922856291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-3379283088018620752016-09-07T21:24:23.239+10:002016-09-07T21:24:23.239+10:00Of course, I forgot the heat accumulation on Earth...Of course, I forgot the heat accumulation on Earth. I have estimated that earlier, averaged over the 2005-2015, to be about 0.95 W/m2. Adding that to 1.15 means that the total feedback could be about 2.1 W/m2<br />Or have I got something terribly wrong...?<br /><br />The global heat accumulation estimate increase when looking at more recent periods (2010-2015 = 1.2 W/m2, 2012-2015 = 1.6 W/m2. It looks like we are closing in on a factor 3 between forcing and forcing+feedback...Olof Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-121301803824829262016-09-07T20:10:25.091+10:002016-09-07T20:10:25.091+10:00Olof,
I think forcing+feedback doesn't necessa...Olof,<br />I think forcing+feedback doesn't necessarily add to OLR. There is also a flux into the ocean.<br />Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-67510759340659673292016-09-07T20:09:59.307+10:002016-09-07T20:09:59.307+10:00Thanks a lot to Nick, MarkR and Olof for all these...Thanks a lot to Nick, MarkR and Olof for all these helpful explanations.<br />Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-12931190373390616202016-09-07T18:37:16.066+10:002016-09-07T18:37:16.066+10:00FWIW, a kind of reality check:
According to the tr...FWIW, a kind of reality check:<br />According to the trend of RSS TTT v4, the temperature has increased by 0.67 C from 1979 til now.<br />Applying Stefan-Boltzmann law on this (assuming a effective temperature level of 260 K), suggests that the radiative emission has increased by 2.45 W/m2. <br />According to the AGGI greenhouse index, the forcing has increased by 1.30 W/m2 during this period. This suggests that there is a total feedback of about 1.15 W/m2 at work..Olof Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-29937959035512655502016-09-07T10:11:07.044+10:002016-09-07T10:11:07.044+10:00Thanks for posting the figure Nick.
Monckton seem...Thanks for posting the figure Nick.<br /><br />Monckton seems to be insisting that the feedback should be determined from the flux change when the temperature at the "peak emission altitude" changes by 1 K. He seems to believe this is around 5 km, although Figure 2 shows that this altitude depends on where you are. If we followed Monckton's idea of just changing the temperature at one level, arbitrarily define a layer to be 100 hPa thick and then see the change in flux, then you get a response of somewhere 0.3-0.33 W m-2 K-1 by following Monckton's idea. <br /><br />The real value is ~3.1 W m-2 K-1, Monckton thinks it's bigger than the real value, but following his suggestion gives a much smaller number. This is because Monckton doesn't understand the relevance of Planck's Law and that radiative emission or absorption in a gas depends on wavelength, amount of gas etc.MarkRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07010058907167894548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-37972991677232165652016-09-07T10:07:33.001+10:002016-09-07T10:07:33.001+10:00Thanks, Mark,
I think the whole fig is interesting...Thanks, Mark,<br />I think the whole fig is interesting.Nick Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-72076374806005253542016-09-07T08:58:13.010+10:002016-09-07T08:58:13.010+10:00The chain rule rules! Knowing how to apply the cha...The chain rule rules! Knowing how to apply the chain rule is important for separating variables and being able to reduce a complex set of equations into something simple. <a href="http://contextearth.com/2016/07/04/alternate-simplification-of-qbo-from-laplaces-tidal-equations/" rel="nofollow">http://contextearth.com/2016/07/04/alternate-simplification-of-qbo-from-laplaces-tidal-equations/</a><br /><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-40567189894050848142016-09-07T02:01:28.009+10:002016-09-07T02:01:28.009+10:00Could you put up the temperature part of Figure 2 ...Could you put up the temperature part of Figure 2 from Soden & Held? It shows how the surface always contributes a bit and how the biggest response in the moist tropics comes from high up, but low down in the dry descending branches of the Hadley cell. There's a world of wonderful detail in there that Monckton is completely and blissfully clueless about.<br /><br />There's now a similar approach for cloud radiative effects too. Here's how they were calculated in a bunch of models:<br />http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00248.1<br />And recent work using the A-train satellites to observe them:<br />http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0257.1MarkRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07010058907167894548noreply@blogger.com