Guest essay by Rud Istvan
In recent weeks, there have been a number of WUWT guest posts on climate sensitivity related matters. Sensitivity is determined by feedbacks to increased CO2. The delta T to doubled CO2 in the absence of feedbacks is 1.1-1.2C. Monckton calculated 1.166C in his new (and unfinished) ‘Feet of Clay’ series of posts; Lindzen used 1.2 for simplicity (below). The slight difference is of no matter for this mostly conceptual post.
There have been a number of ‘skeptical’ comments and even guest response posts (FUBAR) that have gotten a lot of things ‘not quite right’ on this very important general subject including:
1. Feedback cannot be positive since conservation of energy (COE) would be violated.
2. Feedback cannot be positive since the climate would go unstable.
3. Bode feedback model does not apply to climate at all.
4. Positive feedback cannot be >0.1 as the Bode ‘amplifier’ goes unstable.
These misconceptions are underpinned by mis-definition of the greenhouse effect (GHE), by mis-definition of feedbacks, and by mis-application of the Bode feedback amplifier conceptualization to climate. Bode can ‘translate’ easily between actual climate feedbacks and a simplified conceptual climate system model, when correctly applied within realistic value ranges as Lindzen did in several of his previous papers.
The purpose of this guest post is simply to clarify the general subject matter so that WUWT denizens do not mindlessly repeat apparently erroneous misconceptions. It use only words and logic. No math for the math challenged, and only robust general data for the data challenged. Uses only some simple arithmetic plus some simple Socratic logic. It will therefore be a bit philosophical in nature, as only the big picture is intended. It uses only simple intuitive explanations. Quibbles concerning any of the above are hopefully irrelevant.
And it endeavors to use only previous WUWT guest posts or comments as references (just two footnotes, both relating to one sub-assertion concerning a perhaps little known factoid about observational/model precipitation). Google is your friend if you wish to verify any guest post assertion using only peer reviewed literature, as some warmunists unwisely demand. The Google-Fu clue words are in the text. Truth obviously does not lie only in peer-reviewed literature. Especially not politicized climate ‘truth’. ‘Truth’ is based on verifiable, repeatable scientific method results. And ‘truth’ cannot ever be proven (Gödel’s theorems); only the lack of ‘truth’ via falsification (Popper, Kuhn). As Einstein said, “A single experiment can prove me wrong”. See ebook The Arts of Truth for many confirming ‘Popperian’ examples including in the penultimate climate chapter. And for supporting details with many footnotes, see some essays in ebook Blowing Smoke, foreword by Judith Curry.
GHE
The Earth (both land and sea) is warmed by sunlight energy, aka incoming shortwave radiation (ISR)—and very little else. (Borehole temperature reconstructions show how little heat is coming up from Earth’s core to the surface, another speculative misconception—but that is a digression). Earth is cooled by outgoing longwave radiation (aka infrared, OLR). At any atmospheric CO2 concentration, incoming and outgoing must eventually balance first at the notional effective radiating level (ERL) high in the troposphere somewhere, and then for sure at the definitely measurable (by satellite) top of atmosphere (TOA). Earth then reaches some reasonably stable radiative temperature balance but for its other (for whatever reasons) natural variations (ice ages, MWP, LIA).
For purposes of this mostly conceptual post, lets stipulate surface averages ~287K, or ~14C in 1880, with a 0.8C ‘anomaly’ increase toward ~15C since 1880 as CO2 went from ~280ppm to ~400ppm now. Those are the IPCC norms. See several previous Bob Tisdale guest posts for referenced fact details. The specifics do not matter too much for the conceptual big picture here.
The GHE is not an increase in heat, does not involve CO2 ‘creating’ heat, and does not violate COE. All wrong conceptualizations of AGW basics. Earth’s heat energy input is provided by solar ISR, at about a constant 240wm-2 (Monckton FoC #3 table 1, and Nick Stokes comments to Fubar). GHE is the result of certain gas molecules, most importantly water vapor and CO2, ‘absorbing’ and then ‘scattering’ by omnidirectional re-emission, OLR photons. That is, those atmospheric molecules hinder OLR radiative cooling from Earth’s surface to space. A surface warmed by ISR but not cooled by an equivalent amount of OLR will warm until the increase in resultant surface temperature produces enough additional OLR to restore the net balance. That is the simple essence of the GHE. The precise calculations involve the Stephan-Boltzman law, altitude lapse rates, and other complicated considerations—but those details are not material to this conceptual general post. The net rebalanced temperature equilibrium where net incoming again equals net outgoing radiation energy for a doubling of CO2 is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). More practically (concerning observational energy balance model (EBM) calculations of it), the ‘effective climate sensitivity’. (The difference between ‘equilibrium’ and ‘effective’ involves variations over very long time frames to minor stuff like vegetative albedo changes over many centuries. You want the highest ECS, go long like Hansen’s 1000 years paper. We neglect those additional quibbles in this post as a mere sideshow distraction.)
Tyndall first experimentally determined that H2O and CO2 gasses have this OLR retarding property in 1858-9, as reported then to the Royal Society. Lest anyone think this basic physics is wrong (aka Sky Dragons), experimentally deserts are relatively dry so relatively low water vapor. That is why they cool sharply on cloudless nights. Anyone can run this climate experiment for themselves in any desert to verify this for themselves. (But take along a real good sleeping bag water vapor substitute to remain comfortable.) Low atmospheric water vapor does not hinder OLR radiative night cooling from the ISR heated daytime surface. CO2 is the same, except since reasonably well-mixed deserts won’t show the same desert night cooling effect.
The quantum reason both gas molecules have this ‘OLR obstructing’ property relates to their physical molecular shapes. But that is another digression into interesting physics details unnecessary for this conceptual post. Suffice it to say it is also how microwave ovens work (on H2O).
Feedbacks
Properly defined, a feedback is a change in some climate property given a change in some other climate property. Conceptually, it is a first derivative of the property; a change in one with respect to a change in another. This simple calculus idea (first articulated by Newton and Leibnitz, therein lies another wonderful history of science unnecessary digression) has been the source of much unfortunate skeptical WUWT blogosphere confusion nowish.
Consider just three basic properties: CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, water vapor concentration in the atmosphere (specific humidity, NOT relative humidity), and cloud concentration in the atmosphere.
1. CO2 being a GHG will warm ceterus paribus. Stipulated base from a nominal equilibrium at 280ppm in 1880 at +14C. Consensual result 2x= ~+1.2C. Not disputable since just basic SB physics.
2. H2O gas being a GHG will warm ceterus paribus. Since there is much more H2O gas (the global average is about 1.8-2% of the atmosphere) than the ‘trace’ 0.04% CO2, water vapor must be the predominant GHE warmer. In fact, absent the Earth’s specific humidity, the planet would have been about -18C rather than +14C in 1880. This fact could be described by warmunists as a thermal runaway Δ32C catastrophe—except without it and the resulting natural temperature equilibrium given the water vapor positive primary effect, the Earth would have been frozen solid for many epochs supporting no life at all. So the simple water vapor primary warming effect is NOT evidence for modern CAGW feedbacks. It is life’s primary salvation on our watery blue planet.
3. Clouds are a primary negative forcing of about -20wm-2.
Notice that in 1880 (pre AGW), these three primary factors were in ‘equilibrium’ according to warmunist AR4 SPM figure 4. Logically parse that seminal AGW attribution figure. There are two primary warming properties offset by one negative property, but no thermal runaway is evident according to IPCC. How could that be? Because these are all primary factors rather than ‘first derivative’ feedbacks. The primaries obviously equilibrate in a damped (non-runaway) fashion. That is logically simple. The Earth ~T we experience is where water vapor warming roughly balances ISR to OLR under present Earth circumstances at ~287K , since it is the main GHG. The overall system is negatively damped by two simple negative primary cloud mechanisms. If water vapor increases, so will clouds at altitude via the temperature (hence condensation) lapse rate. Such clouds at some altitude have two secondarily primary negative ΔT damping mechanisms. First, on average more cloud means more albedo, which means less ‘heating’ ISR reaching the surface because more is reflected back to space before warming the surface. Second, more cloud eventually means more precipitation, which by definition lowers atmospheric specific humidity (while also releasing the related heat of condensation higher in the atmosphere where it has an easier GHE time radiating away to cool Earth—there is simply less GHE ‘insulation’ to fight through since thin blankets ‘warm’ less than thick blankets). So clouds cool by reflecting ISR and by removing warming water vapor. That is the primary negative Earth damping. No thermal runaway is possible in such a damped system. Nor has any ever been observed. Else we would not be here to guest post and comment. QED.
Properly defined feedbacks are the first derivatives of these primary mechanisms. That is, how do these primary properties change as the underlying fundamentals change? Do they get stronger or weaker? We know that primary delta CO2 changes as a log function of concentration; each doubling has the same effect as the previous doubling. 280=>560ppm is the same as 560=>1120ppm. And we know that the primary effect of each doubling absent other feedbacks is a bit less than 1.2C. We don’t know the first derivative direct feedback (δCO2/ΔCO2) as that involves the planetary carbon cycle. Changes in natural carbon sources and sinks as CO2 changes. It appears unsaturated (unlike the Bern model), which implies a negative feedback (Coccolithophorids have increased 10x in the North Atlantic in the past 30 years). Lets treat this first direct CO2 derivative as unknown, therefore about zero for the sake of general logical argument even though it is probably negative based on planetary land greening and ocean NPP. (Please, the Salby lectures on carbon cycle stuff is just so wrong in several ways including baseline facts and atmospheric saturation that JC and I decided not to even do a joint post on it—Salby does not merit a credible rejoinder at all. A separate post here could be forthcoming if sufficient WUWT denizen skeptics insisted [to further clear the Salby air]. But this digresses yet further.)
The CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate models estimate ECS (not using Bode at all, just mathematical/parameterized climate long term simulations of emergent properties) at about 3.2, implying a Bode feedback f of about 0.65 if f=0 is ~1.2 per Lindzen (below). We also know that several different ways of computing observational ECS give about 1.65 per a comment to CoF #3: “Lewis and Curry 2014 used only IPCC AR5 ‘official’ values to estimate 1.64 (median) using the observational EBM approach. They also provided confidence interval ranges around the central value, and showed the value was not sensitive to choice of EBM time frames. See their table 1 at Climate Etc. Guy Callender estimated 1.67 way back in 1938 in his paper to the Royal Met. Soc. A simple regression of log CO2 ppm versus HadCrut T gives 1.71 with an r^2 of 0.9. Both approaches are discussed in essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke. Lewis 2013 used Bayesian objective priors to estimate 1.6.”
So we finally reached the core of the true feedback conundrum. There is a ~2x difference between model ECS ~3.2 and observation ECS ~1.65. But note than in neither the GCM model case nor the observational case is there any ‘thermal runaway’ or climate instability ‘tipping point’ implied. There is in either case no C in CAGW (absent the ever feared but non-existant ‘tipping point’ hobgoblins). That imagined instability is another misapplication of climate ‘derivative’ feedbacks based on misunderstanding/misapplying Bode.
A familiar example helps explain why the operational electronic amplifier design example (Bode) is inapt, a mis-definition of ‘tipping point’ instability in the climate context and also in the Bode feedback amplification context. The amplifier design is not the sound system; it is one of four components: the amp, the mic, the loudspeakers, and the ‘room’ environment.
It is self evident from most denizen’s personal experience that auditorium microphone/amplifier/loudspeaker sound systems are usually well behaved despite the existence of substantial feedbacks (the mike obviously ‘hears’ the speaker plus the amplified loudspeaker version of the speaker (with speed of sound delay), and feeds both sounds back to the amplifier for further amplification—a positive feedback by definition). Auditorium sound systems do not misbehavenly screech until the system Bode f present in the venue gets too high (usually f~>0.8, and usually at a fairly high pitched ‘screetch’ frequency since those are more easily reflected from walls back to the mike—which is why Bose sound systems also use a separate single omnidirectional sub woofer). That certainly is not f=0.1 giving a measly ‘stable’ Bode amplification of ~1.1x as Monckton’s FoC series figure 1 ‘max stable’ asserts. Such a sound system would be worthless. No politician would ever be heard at the back of the auditorium—which might be a good thing politically, but unfortunately does NOT happen in the real world. The FoC figure as labeled implies all auditorium sound systems are essentially useless. Obviously that is not true. There are two practical ways to solve this well-known physical feedback problem in actual sound systems. Place the speakers further from the mike so the acoustic feedback energy is sufficiently attenuated by distance to lower system f below ~0.8, or reduce the system amplification to lower f below system ~0.8. The former, not the latter, is usually done so that the crowds can still hear the speaker despite about 6x audio amplification; just put the loudspeakers in the far side corners, or better yet in the room’s back far corners. If a transitory problem, the latter (turn the amp down a bit) is usually done immediately by the mike guy running the sound system.
Reconciling Feedbacks and Observational ECS
The essence of the warmunist ECS 3 difference to observational ECS ~1.65 (e.g. Monckton FoC#3) must lie in correctly defined ‘first derivative’ feedback differences. There are only two significant ones, as all the other minor feedbacks roughly cancel to zero per both AR4 and AR5. These two are water vapor and clouds. Lets consider them in reverse order for simplicity’s sake. Dessler (2010) purported to find (per NASA website) a positive cloud feedback. But his r^2 was only 0.02, meaning no statistical difference from zero feedback despite his and NASA’s subsequent claims. Eschenbach used CERES at WUWT very recently to show the likely value was slightly negative. Zero or slightly negative makes no difference for this general post. Zeroish is just fine conceptually. Both CMIP3 and CMIP5 have a significantly positive cloud feedback.
AR3 made the clear written assertion that water vapor feedback doubles the CO2 no feedback primary result (IPCC TAR WG1 7.2.1.1). So ~1.2C absent feedbacks amplifies to ~2.4C. That translates to a simple WVF Bode f=0.5 assuming 2x CO2 is ~1.2C. Now, AR4 asserted the central ECS was 3.0, so net Bode ~0.65. (Notice this post is simply translating from amplification to feedback using Bode logic, nothing more, per the following Lindzen Bode curve with f0=1.2:
So modeled AR4 clouds must implicitly have a strongly positive Bode feedback of f=(~0.65-0.5)=~0.15, since all other forcings in both AR4 and AR5 roughly cancel to zero. (This is a conceptually qualitative rather than precisely quantitative argument, with which there is perhaps much to quibble about on the data margins—but not concerning the core logic.)
Lets translate all that back to ‘reality’ using simple Bode concepts with observed climate feedbacks in a general physical reconciliation to observational ECS. Clouds, ~f=0 per Eschenbach analysis of CERES. We also know that CMIP3 and CMIP5 understate precipitation by about half, especially in the tropics.[1], [2] So climate models should overstate WVF since they don’t get the precipitation water vapor reduction right. And these faulty precipitation models do not incorporate either the Linden adaptive infrared iris hypothesis (BAMS 2001), nor the closely related Eschenbach tropical Tstorm regulatory hypothesis posted many times previously here (both relate to lowering the net water vapor feedback). So, if WVF is approximately half of the IPCC 0.5 f based just on mis-modeled precipitation, then the total ECS per Bode f ~ 0.25 is ECS about 1.65 per the above curve. That is exactly what Monckton has computed separately, and what several other unrelated observational studies have estimated independently as cited above. A nice conceptual closure.
Summary
Feedbacks are properly understood as ‘first derivatives’ of basic climate properties, not those properties themselves. Since the climate according to warmunists was in proximate ‘property equilibrium’ circa 1880 per their basic CAGW theory, we can infer that the system was reasonably stable then with ISR equaling OLR given WVF, damped by clouds in two logical ways, albedo and precipitation (negative primary system response, a damped system that cannot undergo ‘tipping point excursions’). There is a likely small net positive ‘first derivative’ net feedback on the order of Bode f~0.25, which results in a still stable climate system (absent natural variations) with an ECS of about 1.65. No CAGW, and only a little AGW.
And that little AGW is still not provable since the difference between the warming from ~1920-1945 is not distinguishable from the warming of 1975-2000. Even IPCC AR4 SPM figure 4 could not attribute the earlier warming cycle to AGW, only to natural variation. Natural variation surely has not ceased to exist afterwards, since the world cooled in the interim period 1945-1975 despite rising CO2, and since it has not warmed since 2000 except for a now rapidly cooling 2015 El Nino—despite the fact that about 35% of all additional atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured since 1958 (Keeling Curve) came during the same post ~1999 period that did not meaningfully warm according to 4 different balloon radiosonde and 3 different satellite datasets. The final inconvenient fact:
[1] Stephens, GeWex WCRP 20: 5-7 (2010)
[2] Dai, J. Clim. 19:4605-4630 (2006)
Rud, thanks for this post and all of your comments on various sites these past few years.
I shall not respond in detail here, but shall provide a detailed consideration of feedback errors in the models in a future episode if Feet of Clay.
However, Mr Istvan, here as elsewhere, has misrepresented what I have said so far.
First, he says I calculated pre-feedback sensitivity to be 1.166 K against IPCC’s 1.159 K. No: my value is 0.985 K, ant that makes a big difference to final sensitivity.
Secondly, I have at no point stated that an electronic system containing feedback factors >1 Is necessarily unstable. I have, however, stated that process engineers designing electronic systems intended to operate stably where there are uncertainties as to the quality of components or the consistency of operating conditions – a situation that obtains in the climate – tend to avoid positive feedback if possible and, in any event, to limit it to 0.1, or if possible 0.01.
I have now had the opportunity to present the full argument, with all relevant equations, at the London climate conference, there were numerous experts in signal processing and electronic circuit design present, and they found no fault with my argument, and specifically found no fault with my mention of the process engineers’ design limit.
And, as I have repeatedly attempted to explain, I do not draw any conclusion from the process engineers’ limit. Indeed, when I first published reviewed papers mentioning that limit, without any objection from the reviewers on four separate occasions, I merely stated that in the light of that limit the formidable near-thermostasis over the past 810,000 years in a climate system subject to numerous destabilising influences seemed to indicate something wrong with the determination of feedbacks in the models, though I did not at that time know what it was. I know now.
There is indeed something gravely wrong, but I have not yet said what it is. And it will become all too apparent, once I have explained it, that the process engineers’ limit is not in fact breached by feedbacks operating in the climate system. I
I hope, therefore, that readers will not allow themselves to be misled by Mr Istvan’s mischaracterization of what I have said – a mischaracterization in which he vexingly persists even after being told of it.
Thirdly, I should make it clear that the 1.7 K final sensitivity I have reached at this point in the Feet of Clay series does not assume a lesser water vapor or cloud feedback than the official values. I shall be modelling Mr Istvan’s halving of the water vapor feedback and his zeroing of the cloud feedback, both of them justifiable and necessary reductions, in a future episode of Feet of Clay.
Finally, it matters not how the models determine or account for feedbacks, since the black-box approach I am taking requires only a knowledge of the officially-deduced inputs to the models, including the feedbacks, and of the officially published sensitivities, together with the well calibrated official sensitivity equation that serves as a test meter.
In short, Mr Istvan has unwisely and unscientifically attempted tepeatedly to misstate what little I have said about feedback so that he can attack it, and thus to criticize my argument before I have completed it.
I had hoped for better from him than this.
You say so. Now prove it. You have already been undone by an EE who made your circuit and ran it for two days on his bench. See previous FoC comments formthe circuit and details. I call you wrong on Bode details about instability above 0.1. Not on the rest of your magnificent FoC posts, which are mostly right and whichnI have mostly supported for years.
ristvan: I call you wrong on Bode details about instability above 0.1. Not on the rest of your magnificent FoC posts, which are mostly right and whichnI have mostly supported for years.
Indeed, Monckton’s work is not “beyond all repair”, as you note here: you wrote a technical modification to his peer reviewed published paper (with others) on the simplified model. Most of it is pretty good. As to his details about “instability above 0.1”, he has clearly written that with proper care in design, “above 0.1” does not necessarily lead to instability.
Monckton of Brenchley said in part at September 12, 2016 at 2:49 am:
“Secondly, I have at no point stated that an electronic system containing feedback factors >1 Is necessarily unstable.”
What is he suggesting – that its not unstable! Or is this another instance of tripping over tongue? Is it the case that he intended to say “feedback factors >0.1” or does the actual confusion here lie deeper! He may again consider this “quibbling”. (Recently he has conflated stable/unstable and exponential/power and called it semantics!) Or he might appreciate the opportunity to clarify. I hope so.
ristvan,
“You say so. Now prove it.”
Prove what? I’ve read his recent posts and thought he was arguing that a high feedback rate/effect was contraindicated by apparent long term (relative) temperature stability, not that it was disproved by it . . I don’t see how he could prove the long term stability, let alone the low feedback he feels is implied by it.
PS~
It seems to me he is (with regard to feedback) essentially counter-arguing the idea that “natural variation” is so low that recent warming must be indicative of a high response to increased CO2 concentration. As in, the attempts to minimize long assumed past warming periods (i.e. the infamous “hockey-stick” graph) entail an inductive logical contradiction of sorts; High feedback effects would logically tend to cause high natural variability, not long term flat-lining of temps, right?
Huh… Interesting… Cool… Got to ruminate on this for a little bit…
careful, one of the main products of rumination is methane and that thousands of times more powerful that CO2 !!
Fine, how about I cogitate for a little bit. Would that be more environmentally friendly? :))
Sorry, thinking for yourself is totally out of the question !! Not at all environmentally acceptable.
Fine, I’ll mull it over for a little bit… A word of warning, if you’re not careful, I’m going to pull out my thesaurus and start flinging $5 words around. :))
Excellent and most informative post. Thank you, Rud.
informative but wrong. Don’t believe all you read even if the result confirms your biases 😉
I’d love to take your sentence and turn it into a nice infinity loop but I only have seconds to type th-
Over the past few years, I have found Rud to be a competent logician. On the other hand, I have not evaluated Greg.
I believe I will just as flippantly, and expertly dismiss you as have Mr. Istvan. (Waving my hand) You are wrong – away with you.
“In fact, absent the Earth’s specific humidity, the planet would have been about -18C rather than +14C in 1880.”
I don’t reckon 0.3 albedo is possible without humidity.
Absolutely correct. In the absence of water in the atmosphere, the 240 becomes a much greater number. All that cooling is due solely to water in the atmosphere.
Clouds are over half of the albedo.
Clouds are a net negative forcing of -21 W/m2.
But this made up of: reflected solar shortwave forcing -52 W/m2 (or 52 of the 101 W/m2 of Albedo).
Longwave GHE forcing of +31 W/m2.
The combination is -21 W/m2 and clouds are 52% of the 0.2983 albedo fraction.
In the absence of an interacting atmosphere the albedo is 0.0. The word water means three phases of water; solid, liquid, and vapor.
In the absence of an interacting atmosphere (whatever that is) earth’s albedo is not zero; or even 0.0 .
Oceanic water is at least 0.03 diffuse reflectance and being 70% of the surface would mean perhaps 0.02 for minimum albedo.
But grass and trees and rocks have much higher reflectances than water, so absent an atmosphere (meaning also no clouds) albedo is not zero.
Of course; in reality, absent an atmosphere would also imply no oceans anyway.
So the conjecture is meaningless.
And for the record; ALL of the known rocky planets etc, have non zero albedos.
G
That would be an atmosphere that is transparent to radiative energy at all wave lengths.
What do you calculate the surface temperature of an such an idealized Earth to be for (1) a black surface, and (2) a surface that is not assumed to be black?
And ‘truth’ cannot ever be proven (Gödel’s theorems);.
Gödel’s theorems – you need to specify Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Gödel did develop a completeness theorem for first order logic. In other words, every syntactically correct expression in a first order logic system evaluate to either true or false, but never to both true and false (contradiction).
Gödel’s theorems apply to formal systems deduced from axioms.
Physics is not axiomatically based. (One of the Hilbert’s problems,)
“The delta T to doubled CO2 in the absence of feedbacks is 1.1-1.2C. Monckton calculated 1.166C”
Just under 1 °C at the ERL, and after prompting, around 0.67 (0.68) °C at the surface for an increase of 3.7W/m2.
I noticed the same thing. Rud Istvan assumes that the climate sensitivity without feedbacks is 1.1 – 1.2 C. According to the Earth’s energy balance equation, the right value is about 0.6C. This is the results of very simple calcuation.
Interesting review article, Mr Istvan. I do wonder if the trolls will go after you for eliminating CAGW.
Of course they will. Including here. And will thereby expose yet more of their poor ‘climate science’.
Clear and concise and yet still sufficiently thorough, A fantastic counterpoint to the ever ongoing work of the IPCC which had sensitivity “settled” at 1.5-4.5C 40 years ago and then spent 40 years and billions of dollars to narrow it down to…1.5-4.5C. They know it’s wrong, they know they deceive, they know what they do is not about science. We’re waiting for real science to wake up to this travesty that is being foisted on the world. The efforts of Istvan, Monckton, Eschenbach, Dr. Ball and others here is invaluable and will some day be accepted as great truth spoken at a time of need!
“Properly defined feedbacks are the first derivatives of these primary mechanisms.”
No, the first derivatives you are talking about are equilibrium sensitivities, NOT feedbacks. Not a good start for “properly defined”.
“So clouds cool by reflecting ISR and by removing warming water vapor. That is the primary negative Earth damping. No thermal runaway is possible in such a damped system.”
You are using ‘damped’ in a different way to that usual in control theory. You are using it here in a way which seems to be synonymous with a negative feedback. Damping is usually used to represent a frictional or dispersive process which consumes energy and reduces the possibility of oscillation. This is conceptually very different from a feedback.
Greg September 11, 2016 at 2:12 pm
“You are using ‘damped’ in a different way to that usual in control theory.” Ahem, usual does not mean etched in stone on “Mose”s” tablets. Rules of thumb are just that. Oh yeah “Control Theory” not physical law.
Does it work? That is the sole basis of judgement.
michael
The point I’m making is that if you are setting out to explain things, it is best not to start redefining everything so that what you write does not tie in with most other writing on the subject at the same time as claiming to “properly define” things.
This is not just control theory, in most branches of engineering a damper is not a neg. feedback, it’s a dissipative device.
Greg September 11, 2016 at 5:42 pm
Hello Greg. Basics. I am a a tool/mold maker machinist. We have something called the “Machinist’s Handbook.” Any time there is a disagreement the two sides grab their “Bible”. Then they compare editions.
Climate science has no “Hand book”. Oh there are a few bits and pieces of popular formulas and rule of thumb reference values. But nothing like the Machinist Handbook which can turn two fire breathing monsters into kitty cats upon reading.
Think I am wrong? Want to know the drill size for a tap Hmm GH3 or GH5? or a roll tap, How about calculating sine\cosine?
I know not on the same scale. Wrong a high school dropout who can at least read can take this tome and answer 99% of any technical or engineering questions. The problem with Climate science is there is no firm foundation; we are still arguing over what are the properties of a GHG. This is basic Physics. How you express it in a conversation is so rudimentary that the meaning is impossible to lose. Digressing into nitpicking because of the vast utility of the English language is counterproductive.
michael
Mike the Morlock says: Want to know the drill size for a tap Hmm GH3 or GH5? or a roll tap, How about calculating sine\cosine?
Prior to retiring I was a cutting tool design engineer. The Machinist Handbook was my “bible” used daily. I used the large print edition. Thanks for the reminder of GH levels, roll taps, etc.
For those interested each GH level in tapping is .0005 of an inch.
Dissipative, is the word you were seeking Greg. Damping is a lossy and non energy storing proposition.
G
No, Greg you are wrong (but I will do you the courtesy of telling you why). Clouds prevent some of the incoming radiation from even hitting the ground and warming it. Since they directly prevent OLR from even being created, they are first order effects on the input to the system and can’t be feedbacks. In an electronic circuit they are more like a resistor (or pad) on the input signal.
Walt sez.” Physics is not axiomatically based. “.
What is uniformitarianism? ” As it was in the beginning; it is now and ever shall be”. I mean, I believe that. That the speed of light was the same at the first nanosecond after the Big Bang, for instance, as today and as it will be another ten billion years. But I assume it so without scientific evidence. Axiomatic, or theological, or what?
No, the principal negative feedback is the Planck feedback. Here you are falling for the error the IPCC is trying to propagate in not presenting the main feedback which is the one which ensures climate stability as a feedback at all.
The whole question of “positive” feedbacks is a false one which starts by pretending that the Planck feedback is not a feedback. The real question of whether net feedbacks are +ve or -ve is ONLY a question of whether they make the Planck feedback less negative or more negative. Not even the IPCC is foolish enough to suggest that ALL f/b including Planck could be positive, since as you rightly say this would lead to the obviosly wrong conclusion that climate could be unstable and it isn’t.
I find most of your comments here on WUWT to be well informed but this presentation is full of confusing and mis-use of terms you are improperly presenting as “properly defined”.
You have fallen for the IPCC’s trick.
Thank you Greg.
Greg,
Can you clarify your objection here. Rud explained that temp increases caused by increase in GHG are limited by increases in outgoing IR radiation. According to my (admittedly rapid) googling of Planck feedback, that matches the definition – in other words it appears that Rud’s only failing was not to label the outgoing IR as Planck Feedback.
What is it that I’m missing?
Thanks Andy.
incoming radiation increases surface temperature; increased temperature increases outgoing IR. That is a negative feedback. Rud is trying to redefine the word feedback to be what would usually be called an equilibrium climate sensitivity.
None of his three items include the most important feedback in the system. You can’t rebut the possibility of thermal runaway by excluding the primary feedback. The net effect of the three he discusses could be positive and that is what IPCC calls ‘net positive’ and usage leads to the idea of instability. But IPCC “net positive’ is still really net negative and thus stable. So Rud is unnecessarily trying to disprove instability with a position that the IPCC are not taking. He also has to make up his own numbers to do so.
Whether “net” feedbacks ( excluding Planck ) are slightly +ve or slightly -ve is not established one way or the other. “Net +ve ” is what leads to a more sensitive climate, not to thermal runaway; “net negative” leads towards Lindzen’s range of CS.
Rud also makes unfounded claims that cloud is negative. This not established for all types of cloud, some of which are both positive and negative since they affect both incoming and outgoing and different altitude clouds act differently. You cannot just dump everything into one word: clouds.
‘And we know that the primary effect of each doubling [of CO2] absent other feedbacks is a bit less than 1.2C.’
How do we know this? The atmosphere is not dry. Given that the temperature has “flat-lined” for the last 18 years, why should I believe that the climate sensitivity is > 0?
quite right. The only thing which is fairly uncontroversial is the 2xCO2 forcing, not the climate sensitivity to that forcing.
“fairly uncontroversial is the 2xC02 forcing”
A duh moment for me. Never have understood how 280ppm to 560ppm and 560ppm to 1120 can have the same temp. effect.
Apparently, a 35% increase in C02 post 1999 has no temp effect. So, at what point does the measurable warmer kick in?
How much warmer is it today than it was in the late 1930s/1940s.
Unfortunately, we cannot answer that question due to the endless bastardisation of the thermometer temperature data sets. However, as far as the US is concerned, it is almost certainly cooler today than it was in the late 1930s/1940s. Greenland temperatures also suggest that Greenland was warmer in the late 1930s/1940s, and the Antarctic data suggests no warming at all. Further the tree ring data, that Mann had to ignore when using his nature trick) also suggest that it may not be warmer today than it was in the late 1930s/1940s.
There is no good quality data capable of withstanding the full rigours of scientific investigation that (once realistic and proper errors of measurement are taken into account) clearly establish that it was warmer today than it was in the 1930s/1940s.
I question whether there has trully been any warming (statistically significant warming) since the late 1930s/1940s. Of course there has been some warming since the deep throes of the LIA, but the amount of warming post 1940s may well be over hyped, and any such warming probably a continuation of natural process that took the planet out of the deep throes of the LIA.
The fact that there is no correlation with CO2 in any data set is a severe problem. The 600 to 1000 year lag in the ice core data is more than inconvenient to those who claim that CO2 leads and induces warming as opposed to simply being a response to temperature trends.
“Since the climate according to warmunists…”
If you are trying to present a factual, scientific argument, you would do better to leave out such obviously politically motivated slurs. Getting the facts and the science right would be a bonus too.
I agree. Instantly loses credibility plus, conveniently, likely has the impact of discouraging any real discourse by those (apparently the majority of folks that study this stuff) that disagree.
This is a good discussion except for one major problem. The temperature in the more distant past is less certain, but best results indicate that the temperature over much of the last several inter-glacial periods was significantly higher than present. In addition, the temperature (as best determined) was higher over much of the present (Holocene) inter-glacial period. In fact, the increase over the last couple of hundred years, to the present, is a rise from an unusually low temperature period that lasted several hundred years (LIA). What evidence is present that the recent rise is not just a recovery from an unusual low, rather than a human driven increase? If a large part or even most of the rise is a natural variation as often seen in the past, the value of the feedback is not valid.
Proxy data should always be viewed with caution. Noting that, but for the sake of argument assuming our proxy data to be be reasonably good and useful, strongly suggest that CO2 plays an insignificant role in warming and that there is little, if any, Climate Sensitivity to CO2.
Quite simply the temperature profile of the Holocene cannot be explained by changes in CO2. Ditto the longer period covered by the ice core data.
The fact that (it appears) changes in concentration of CO2 lags temperature change by about 600 to 1000 years is (on paper) a killer to the argument that CO2 induces warming (or cooling when CO2 levels fall) and that there is a Climate Sensitivity to CO2 in the order of say 1 degC to 4.5 degC.
As I often remark Climate Sensitivity is something that can only be determined by observation, not by some theoretical approach. Irrespective of how CO2 may behave in the laboratory, the issue is how it behaves and what it does not in laboratory conditions but in the real world conditions of planet Earth’s atmosphere. that is a question that can only be answered by observation.
Unfortunately the observational data sets are not fit for purpose, but to the extent that they can be relied upon they suggest that Climate Sensitivity is so small that the signal to it cannot be eeked out from the noise of natural variation within the limitations and restrictions of our best measuring equipment.
Unfortunately, I envisage that the measuring errors and limitations of our best measuring equipment is not insignificant and could be large (in the context of what we are discussing) such that the possibility that there is some Climate Sensitivity cannot be ruled out altogether and could be in the region of about 1 degC although I suspect that, if there is such a thing as Climate Sensitivity, it is nearer to zero than it is to 1 degC .
When CO2 lagged temperature, it was a feedback to and not a root cause of temperature change, since the amount of carbon in the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere was essentially constant. But now we are burning fossil fuels and getting a CO2 increase not caused by a temperature increase – nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere during the period covered by the Mauna Loa record, not adding it.
Just to clarify a very good post and keep the EEs and EE wannabes at bay I want to emphasize the following:
The word derivative in this post applies to changes in real values with respect to other real values, there is no d/dT in an equilibrium discussion. For that reason there will be no poles or zeros in the feedback except in the case of when the denominator itself is zero, f=1. The PA system analogy is irrelevant, again equilibrium.
When f=1 the gain is undefined, when f>1 we are not looking at a possible system. The only unstable condition is f exactly 1 per Bode, realizability may imply other constraints.
“there is no d/dT in an equilibrium discussion”
An important point, though I think it should be d/dt. And yes, I think the PA example is best avoided, as it brings in irrelevant phase issues.
Correct, and this should be pointed out as needed. T=temperature t=time.
That is fairly standard nomenclature and would not usually need explanation unless someone were to want to use T to mean time. 😉
Istvan ==> Yes — this all seems right and proper — it is a misapplication of Bode that results in the idea that Feedbackclimate is identical in practice to Feedbackelectronics — particular in the conception that like the microphone/amplifier/speaker sound system, the climate might suddenly shift into a screeching disaster.
For years I was a stage/sound man, traveling the cities of Southern Europe, the Azores, the Canaries, and then the Caribbean, with several bands including an all-electric 11 man jazz band with the old Wall of Sound (stacked speakers) and individual amplifiers for each instrument. Great fun — and with all those stage mics for the brass, reeds, and voices — in venues of huge variety, I dealt daily with feedback problems and solutions.
We will not have those types of problems in the climate system.
It is worth noting that even the screeching speaker scenario is bounded by a negative feedback and does not explode the amp or shut down the local power supply.
The positive feedback is bounded by the limitations of the amplifier to supply power, if it was not convert the whole power of local power station into sound energy before anyone could react to cut the volume. This would probably kill anyone within a few miles.
You just described a scene from Atlas Shrugged!
Hello Rud.
“The purpose of this guest post is simply to clarify the general subject matter so that WUWT denizens do not mindlessly repeat apparently erroneous misconceptions.”
——————-
Sorry Istvan.
It seems that your whole post is based in “erroneous misconceptions” too, as far as I can tell..
The bigger ever misconception:
“Earth is cooled by outgoing longwave radiation”
In the context of your argument, Earth does not really cool or warm, it’s mean temperature is always the same for long time periods. To claim such as you do, you have to show evidence that it does change.
Even M.Mann when says “glob’s warming” is not as specific as you in your claim.
Only an attempt at 100% explanation of climate change solely by radiation physics, which actually leads and supports AGW, has to claim such as, as otherwise it will fail to explain climate change.
It is amazing how much the AGW science depends in the “Earth cooling”, without even providing a mechanism as how.
Relation of radiation with the atmosphere is very simple in principle, a positive radiation imbalance, no cooling from radiation. That is what about the GHE or radiative forcing.
No one can change that, regardless of innuendos that one may start his argument with……
The other thing you start from, with your argument:
“For purposes of this mostly conceptual post, lets stipulate surface averages ~287K, or ~14C in 1880, with a 0.8C ‘anomaly’ increase toward ~15C since 1880 as CO2 went from ~280ppm to ~400ppm now. Those are the IPCC norms. See several previous Bob Tisdale guest posts for referenced fact details. The specifics do not matter too much for the conceptual big picture here.”
—————-
Again you do offer another erroneous misconception.
In that 0.8C anomaly only the last 0.4C of warming can be attributed to CO2 concentration increase.
And it, the 0.8C anomaly is the part of a ~1.2 C warming trend starting from the nadir of LIA, which means that the first 0.8C in that warming trend can not be attributed to the CO2 concentration increase.
Also according to the hiatus period,, which is defined as a period of no warming, the ppm increase that can be considered as an attribution for the last “stage” warming, seems as an increase more like from 280ppm to 380ppm at most.
Also, the use of the ~14C to a move towards ~15C, in the context of your argument is like comparing apples to oranges.
That argument can be applied to any other period of warming during the last 7k years of the cooling trend, when there actually is no any ppm increase of CO2, and it will mean nothing at all, as what in consideration is a very short term spikes compared with the long term changes in climate, anomalies compared with no any care or regard with long steady change, an AGW erroneous misconception.
Also, you mention:
“(Borehole temperature reconstructions show how little heat is coming up from Earth’s core to the surface”
—————–
Why you go so “deep in the abyss”, Rud, if I may ask!
There is a lot of energy in the Earth’s mantle, which is known to exist and be there, contrary to the core that you offer.
Why would you do that ?
In climate science the atmosphere – ocean coupling is considered a lot,,,,,how can you get from the ocean to the core without considering the mantle and its energy!
There is no direct coupling between the core and the oceans, as far as energy and it’s fluctuation is concerned, provided that somehow the core you mention really exists………
So how come that you use obscure “concepts”?
That is where you basically start from with your argument in this post……
Sorry for being a bit over critical……….
If I am wrong I hope you can show me.
cheers
“(Borehole temperature reconstructions show how little heat is coming up from Earth’s core to the surface”
Borehole studies do not tell us how much heat is coming into the climate system through underwater volcanic activity. One of the joker cards in the climatology pack.
We know more about the surface of Pluto than we do about the oceanic seabed.
Speaking of underwater volcanoes… wasn’t an eruption on the Juan de Fuca plate one of the possible explanations for ‘The Blob’?
A possible idea, maybe. Do you have anything more specific, like some record of increased activity?
I recently met a french “ex-director of research” from the CNRS who was proposing underwater volcanoes as “the real cause of GW”. Unfortunately he was very aged and only gave me a ref to totally lightweight “paper” he had got published in a predatory journal. In the end I did not even bother attending his presentation.
However, the chance meeting did bring this issue back to mind as one of the neglected sources of ocean heat.
“wasn’t an eruption on the Juan de Fuca plate one of the possible explanations for ‘The Blob’?”
No.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/08/possible-explanation-for-warm-ocean-water-off-the-oregon-coast-known-as-the-blob/
It was this post I was thinking of… looks like the idea has been pretty thoroughly debunked, from a couple of different sources.
Greg the amount of heat coming to surface of ocean floor, could about the same as heat coming to the surface on the land [per average square km- obviously there is more area of ocean floor than land surfaces- plus far more volcanic activity under the ocean].
So not saying it equal, but even if it is, after heat arrives at the surface it’s quite different effect under the ocean- as the heat could remain in ocean for centuries..
Mr. Stokes said simply “No.”, which is correct, but it might be worthwhile to demonstrate why “no” is correct, and perhaps put this matter to bed.
The mid-ocean ridge system is 80,000 km long, and the portion less than a million years old, which has the highest heat flow by far is probably not much more than 10km. Thus the area of very high heat flow is 800,000 square kilometers. Models of the thermal vents, conductive heat flow and volcanic activity suggest a heat flow of 1 watt per square meter in this region, but actual measurements do not indicate an average heat flow more than one-fourth this value. Let’s take 1 watt per square meter. Thus the power dissipated in the ridge system is about 800 million kilowatts (kilojoules per sec). Total mass in the world’s oceans is 1.4 times ten to the twenty-first kilograms (i.e. 1.4 yottagrams). With a water specific heat of 4.2 kilojoules per kilogram per centigrade degree, the heat capacity of the oceans is about 6 Yottajoules per centigrade degree.
Dividing one by the other suggests some 7 times 10 to the twelfth seconds (2 million years) to increase ocean temperature by one centigrade degree.
Now, it is true that the vents and undersea volcanoes are important locally. And they have a large impact on local chemistry, being the source of massive sulfides, helping to maintain ocean pH. I have even seen photographs of pools of mercury near these vents. But as a source of global energy balance they amount to very little.
Darn it. 200,000 years rather than 2 million, but the argument still stands.
Whiten, I already did with one sentence discussing borehole temps. That was the point of that sentence in this post. Engaging other incorrect opinions also invokes the null hypothesis. I do not have to to engage you; you have to engage me and show that my simple null is wrong. Else you force my type to play endless mindless stupid skeptical whack-a-mole. Exactly what warmunists want us to play.
“Properly defined, a feedback is a change in some climate property given a change in some other climate property. Conceptually, it is a first derivative of the property; a change in one with respect to a change in another.”
Yes, but you need a bit more to make a loop. Here’s how the calculus goes (I wrote about this here):
Start with the problem, find the equilibrium change ΔTₛ (surface) induced by a sustained change of forcing ΔF :
ΔTₛ = S ΔF
S is a derivative, and there is a notion of causality. But then suppose that ΔF is not just the imposed GHG component ΔF₀ but extra changes due to factors a and b. Then differentiation says
ΔTₛ = S ΔF = ΔF₀ + ∂F/∂a Δa + ∂F/∂b Δb
and if a and b co-vary with Tₛ
ΔTₛ = S ΔF = ΔF₀ + ∂F/∂a da/dTₛ ΔTₛ + ∂F/∂b db/dTₛ ΔTₛ
or ΔTₛ ( 1 – ∂F/∂a da/dTₛ – ∂F/∂b db/dTₛ) = ΔF₀ = (dF₀/dF) ΔF
(dF₀/dF) is λ₀. It’s that back-dependence on Tₛ that closes the loop.
The feedback variables a and b (and maybe more) are things like water and albebo (ice etc) but also include temperature, through its enhancement of radiation.
ps I think the warmunist stuff is juvenile, and makes it harder to take the post seriously.
thanks Nick, so S = (dF₀/dF) is λ₀ , it is a sensitivity not a “feedback”. Rud has got this all badly wrong.
“ps I think the warmunist stuff is juvenile, and makes it harder to take the post seriously.”
Yes, a point I made above. It’s good sign that this should not be taken seriously at all. It’s basically a political rant dressed up in some dodgy physics. Very disappointing.
Well I hope no one mindlessly repeats what Rud says without checking it out. Definitely missed the target there.
thanks Nick, so S = (dF₀/dF) is λ₀ ,
Oops, no, I left out an S. With S restored:
ΔTₛ = S ΔF = S ΔF₀ + S ∂F/∂a Δa + S ∂F/∂b Δb
and if a and b co-vary with Tₛ
ΔTₛ = S ΔF = S (ΔF₀ + ∂F/∂a da/dTₛ ΔTₛ + ∂F/∂b db/dTₛ ΔTₛ)
or ΔTₛ ( 1 – S ∂F/∂a da/dTₛ – S ∂F/∂b db/dTₛ) = S ΔF₀ = S(dF₀/dF) ΔF
S (dF₀/dF) is λ₀. It’s that back-dependence on Tₛ that closes the loop.
Thanks for the correction but S still a sensitivity and not a feedback.
Good. Now S in the EE/Bode feedback world is derivative with respect to time. So which T is temperature and which T is time? I myself messed this up by not making this clear earlier.
There is no time in this presentation all these “feedbacks” as Rud is calling them are equilibrium sensitivities. This is why all the non standard use of Bode is more confusing than anything else since it is usually related to time, frequency and phase. A point made by Nick when CoB started wading around with his feet of clay.
If there were strong positive feedbacks, then we wouldn’t see the “hard stop” in temperature rise when we come out of a glacial period. Almost anyone who has ever played with an amp and turned up the volume till you get distortion will have seen this effect – as you hit the “hard stop” – the gain reduces to zero. This effect is clearly and obviously present in the climate and shown by the way the interglacial temperatures are all very close in the ice-core record.
From this I can say It is beyond any real doubt that there are strong negative feedbacks rather than positive feedbacks for any rise in temperature during an interglacial.
And not once has any of those falsely claiming positive feedbacks even once addressed this simple and obvious effect which means all the claims of massive “runaway” global warming are hilarious.
Bingo+++1
Excellent. Really Excellent. No substantive comments and only two editorial comments.
1. You discuss Bode a lot, but don’t define or describe it. That’s likely to be utterly opaque to anyone who is not somewhat familiar with Electrical Engineering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bode_plot
2. “CO2 is the same, except since reasonably well-mixed deserts won’t show the same desert night cooling effect.” At the least there is probably a comma missing after well-mixed. Without it, the sentence is a bit baffling. But I’m not sure much is lost if the whole sentence is removed.
Again. Excellent
If one believes the GHG effect is the result of the climate rather then the cause then the feedbacks proposed from CO2 as far as having a climatic impact are irrelevant.
The Earth is warmed by sunlight energy, ( aka incoming shortwave radiation.) I read that 50% of solar radiation is long wave infrared radiation, 40% is visible light and 10% is short wavelength ultraviolet. 70% of the shortest wavelength UV is absorbed by ozone, ( providentially made by UV radiation by photodissociation of O2,) The incoming solar infrared radiation must also be absorbed ( and re-emitted) by greenhouse gases, but no-one ever mentions this.
Glad to see a reference to ozone. Its presence or absence changes pressure which drives winds. check out https:\\wordpress348.com. Extensive chapters showing CO2 is irrelevant to what temperature we experience.
https://reality348.wordpress.com. Odd, not appearing as a link.
“.com.” fooled WP ??
You are right. The incoming SW radiation flux is about 240 W/m2 warming the Earth, About 70 W/m2 is absorbed by the atmosphere. This is caused by the water (about 77 %) and by ozone (about 20 %). By the same token somebody wrote that there is no cooling of the Earth. Because the is the warming input of 240 W/m2, it is a physical fact that the Earth mus be cooling by the same rate , no question about that.
Why do we talk about feedback? We learned about feedback in electronics or control systems. Someone thought the concept would be useful for analyzing the climate.
We have to remember that all this business is our attempt to simplify the analysis enough that we stand a chance of success.
Our attempts at applying simplifications are probably doomed. We don’t understand the system well enough to get away with that.
If the warmists invoke feedbacks it is fair game to figure out what they are talking about and refute them on that. Under those circumstances we may note that positive feedbacks lead to the kind of instability that we have never observed on this planet.
Spending a lot of time, trying to stuff the Earth’s climate into some paradigm that we already understand, is mostly a waste of effort.
“Under those circumstances we may note that positive feedbacks lead to the kind of instability that we have never observed on this planet.”
No, as long as the overall, net feedback is negative there is no reason why there can not be positive f/b present.
The Planck f/b is strongly negative and ensures that new f/b is always negative. Oddly Run does not even mention it.
Remember that I was talking about a case where a warmist invokes positive feedbacks to hypothesize runaway global warming. In that case they are referring to positive feedback due to increased water vapor, and it’s the only feedback they consider.
I’m not sure feedback is even the best way to think about what’s happening. When we’re analyzing electric circuits we talk about back EMF. I suppose we could refer to back EMF as feedback but we don’t because we don’t need to. The climate is about a zillion times as messy to analyze but I suspect the same applies.
How do you warm ceterus paribus? Best to leave the pretentious latin stuff to CoB.
It simply means CO2 being a GHG will warm the surface, all other things being equal. Not only is this correct, but anyone with google at their finger tips can figure out what it means in a matter of seconds even if they know zero about latin. But you’ve littered this thread with similarly less than useful comments, so I guess you are just staying in character.
I’ve littered this thread with relevant criticisms of the many mistakes that Rud has made here while trying to explain to everyone what he does not understand himself. If you have a counter argument to any of those points feel free.
If you have a counter argument to any of those points feel free.
I’d quibble with his feedback definition also, but other than that, he’s got it right. He crammed a whole lot of concepts and complexity into an explanation with no diagrams or math meant for a lay person. It is impossible to do so without some ambiguity and generalization that can be picked apart.
I’ll not engage in counter argument with you. Instead I shall challenge you. Instead if sniping from the sidelines, provide alternative explanations that you think are correct using the same constraints as Rud. Simple language, no math, no diagrams.
Let’s see what you’ve got.
I’m hearing crickets Greg, davidmhoffer evaluation is correct.
CoB generally gets his grammar right. It is ceteris paribus.
Indeed he does, it’s still a bit of a distraction unless the Latin is sufficiently well known that most people don’t have to stop reading and scrabble for google to find out what the rest of the sentence means.
If you get the spelling wrong you are definitely being pretentious, and failing.
As I observed in an earlier article, I find this caveat “all things remaining equal” to be caveat without substance if not outright disingenuous since we know as fact that the way in which man adds CO2 to the atmosphere means that all other things do not remain equal.
For example, we know as fact that when we burn hydro carbons, it produces water vapour and this alters the ongoing water cycle since burning hydrocarbons is a 24/7 365 day event.
We know that we are consuming oxygen and replacing it with CO2 (and other miscellaneous gases)
it greens the planet, again leading to alterations in the water cycle.
Given that it greens the planet and given that it creates water vapour it alters the albedo.
It mystifies me why anyone places a caveat when we know as fact that the very caveat mentioned is not met.
Let us get into the real world.