Comments for climatephys

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by RW

RW — Sun, 19 May 2013 15:11:37 +0000

Still no reply, Chris?

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by RW

RW — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:00:53 +0000

Put more succinctly, do you agree that 390 W/m^2 is the net power gained at the surface to sustain 288K, and that if more than 390W/m^2 is gained, the surface warms, and that if less than 390 W/m^2 is gained, the surface cools? And that this is entirely independent of how the joules are supplied to the surface?

If not, why not?

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by RW

RW — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:57:30 +0000

Of course. The balance at the surface is the sum of a radiant and non-radiant flux where additive superposition applies to the effects of energy (and power) on the surface temperature. To the extent that the surface receives more direct radiative power from the atmosphere and Sun than it emits, the excess must be replacing non-radiative power leaving the surface, but not returned (effectively making it net zero energy flux entering the surface).

The point is, in the steady-state (for a surface temperature of about 288K), all power in excess of 390 W/m^2 incident on the surface has to be exactly offset by power in excess of 390 W/m^2 leaving the surface, and that the surface specifically emits 390 W/m^2 of radiative power solely due to its temperature (and emissivity, which is really close to 1). Moreover, all non-radiative power leaving the surface has to be in excess of that directly radiated from the surface, otherwise the surface temperature would be higher, where as there is no such requirement for the proportions of radiant and non-radiant power incident on the surface from the atmosphere. Thus, 390 W/m^2 is the net power gained at the surface required to sustain 288K, which is then also the power directly radiated from the surface at a temperature of 288K.

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by Chris Colose

Chris Colose — Sun, 10 Mar 2013 02:14:37 +0000

No, there’s a lot of non-radiative fluxes and horizontal transport.

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by RW

RW — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 02:13:45 +0000

Chris,

Let me ask you this, do you agree that for a state of energy balance, net power gained at the surface is the same as the power directly radiated from the surface?

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by RW

RW — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:54:18 +0000

Chris,

“The problem is that you have no clue what you are looking at because you’ve ignored many terms in the energy budget equation, haven’t even applied energy balance to the planet or surface properly, have made up your own definitions, and have ignored real-world evidence that cloud feedbacks cannot simply be scaled to temperature.”

How about some specifics here? You seem so absolutely sure, which makes seem more than fair to ask.

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by Chris Colose

Chris Colose — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:01:57 +0000

The climate science community is well aware of the definitions, see the Roe 2009 review article for example. The problem is that you have no clue what you are looking at because you’ve ignored many terms in the energy budget equation, haven’t even applied energy balance to the planet or surface properly, have made up your own definitions, and have ignored real-world evidence that cloud feedbacks cannot simply be scaled to temperature. If you actually want to move beyond faith in your flawed analysis, try reading http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html for a basic understanding of the problem. There’s nothing worse than a fanatic who knows something that just ain’t so…thus, this is all I’m going to allow until you give a real effort to learn the basics.

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by RW

RW — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:42:47 +0000

That is, the ‘gain’ is just the ratio between the power supplied into the system and the power gained at the surface. When the post albedo solar power supplied in increases and the surface temperature increases, the dimentionless ratio of these power densities decreases and vice versa, which indicates negative feedback.

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by RW

RW — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:18:15 +0000

If you’re not intersted, I guess you’re not interested. Dimentionless ‘gain’ is basic engineering concept. That the climate science community doesn’t recognize or understand that it quantifies the same exact thing in regards to the net direction and magnitude of the feedback is really poor on their part.

There is more detailed information regarding a lot of this data I’ve presented here:

http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html

Comment on Climate Sensitivity and the Linearized Response by Chris Colose

Chris Colose — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:36:46 +0000

Now you’re just making things up, supported by graphs which look like a Microsoft Paint job from an unreliable site. I’m really not interested. See this post for the proper description of feedback terminology