• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Strong Negative Feedback Found in Radiation Budget

mhaze

Banned
mhaze
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
15,718
Strong Negative Feedback from the Latest CERES Radiation Budget Measurements Over the Global Oceans
By Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Discussion and blog at Watts Up With That, 2008 "Best Science Blog" award winning site.

 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/spencer-strong-negative-feedback-found-in-radiation-budget/

The Short Story

A prediction is made based on measurements that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in a warming of about 0.5 degree C. NASA Aqua satellite data are used.




A possibly valid criticism of this work is that it is based only on seven years of data. However, this data is relative to short lived atmospheric phenomena and rapid changes seen in such (basically changes < 30 days). So climatology is not measured. Radiative balance obviously changes considerably from season to season, or day to day. 60N to 60S is a wide swath of the planet, so it can't be argued that the results apply strictly to the equatorial regions.

Offhand it seems valid to take short term phenomena to deduce radiative balance changes. If this debunks the "Strong CO2 forcing argument" used by radical environmentalists for their agenda, so be it. The implications for climatology are obvious.
 
Last edited:
That says ummm... as temps go up, there is more energy re-radiated into space? Therefor, a negative feedback, limiting heat gain.

ETA: the satellite, being in outer space, is considering all radiation, even with whatever CO2 effects.

And I do hope you would change back to the usual font. Those little skinny letters are hard for me to read.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Strong Negative Feedback from the Latest CERES Radiation Budget Measurements Over the Global Oceans
Click to expand...
mhaze said:
By Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

 Discussion and blog at Watts Up With That, 2008 "Best Science Blog" award winning site.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/spencer-strong-negative-feedback-found-in-radiation-budget/

 The Short Story

 A prediction is made based on measurements that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would result in a warming of about 0.5 degree C. NASA Aqua satellite data are used.




A possibly valid criticism of this work is that it is based only on seven years of data. However, this data is relative to short lived atmospheric phenomena and rapid changes seen in such (basically changes < 30 days). So climatology is not measured. Radiative balance obviously changes considerably from season to season, or day to day. 60N to 60S is a wide swath of the planet, so it can't be argued that the results apply strictly to the equatorial regions.

Offhand it seems valid to take short term phenomena to deduce radiative balance changes. If this debunks the "Strong CO2 forcing argument" used by radical environmentalists for their agenda, so be it. The implications for climatology are obvious.
Click to expand...


Fonts fixed.
 
casebro said:
That says ummm... as temps go up, there is more energy re-radiated into space? Therefor, a negative feedback, limiting heat gain.

ETA: the satellite, being in outer space, is considering all radiation, even with whatever CO2 effects......
Click to expand...
Re radiated, yes.

Which always was the crucial measurement waiting to be made. The problem with estimates made from guesses at albedo change is that what was being looked for was a tiny fractional change, so the errors in the resulting numbers were high.

I guess you could say in plain english something like:

"Radiative balance changes trumps co2 greenhouse changes".

BenBurch said:
Well, DUH!

The warmer the body, the more the radiation. Only an idiot would think that to be news.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ben. There's some news in there. If you don't see it, then just wait. Your Warmer friends Tamino, Eli, and Gavin will be all over it shortly.
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
The warmer the body, the more the radiation. Only an idiot would think that to be news.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the radiated energy is proportional to temperature to the power of four, whereas absorption is proportional to logarithm of concentration.

The more carbon dioxide there is, the less effective it is as a greenhouse gas and the warmer Earth gets, the more effective it becomes at radiating energy back into space.

This doesn't mean doubling atmospheric CO2 is a good thing, or that we should permit it.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
If I recall correctly, the radiated energy is proportional to temperature to the power of four, whereas absorption is proportional to logarithm of concentration.

The more carbon dioxide there is, the less effective it is as a greenhouse gas and the warmer Earth gets, the more effective it becomes at radiating energy back into space.

This doesn't mean doubling atmospheric CO2 is a good thing, or that we should permit it.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

Yes, this is why a Venutian runaway is not likely here. None of this is news. All of this is in current models.
 
That’s not what the author looked at, however. What he’s done is look at a statistically insignificant period of time (very little CO2 change) and found that that amount of energy the earth radiates back into space is greater in warmer years.

As ben said, well duh..

This is indeed exactly what one would expect, it’s part of the earths weather, not the earths climate. The reason why the author wrote this on a blog is because he would have been laughed out of town if he tried to submit it to a peer reviewed journal, it’s that dumb.

Keep in mind this same author has said it’s his scientific training and background that convinced him evolution is false and that the world must have an intelligent designer.
 
BenBurch said:
Yes, this is why a Venutian runaway is not likely here. None of this is news. All of this is in current models.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt it is, but it's apparently news to some people, so I don't see anything wrong by pointing it out.

McHrozni
 
That's hardly a negative feedback....it's just normal radiation budget balancing - unlike Greece.

A negative feedback would enhance the radiative outflow the way water vapour magnifies C02 forcing in a positive ( currently ) or negative ( cooling orbital ) manner.. :rolleyes:
 
lomiller said:
....The reason why the author wrote this on a blog is because he would have been laughed out of town if he tried to submit it to a peer reviewed journal, it’s that dumb.

Keep in mind this same author has said it’s his scientific training and background that convinced him evolution is false and that the world must have an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...

What arrogance and insulting behavior you show.

Oh....and you are quite wrong.

The article is in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research

McHrozni said:
If I recall correctly, the radiated energy is proportional to temperature to the power of four, whereas absorption is proportional to logarithm of concentration.

The more carbon dioxide there is, the less effective it is as a greenhouse gas and the warmer Earth gets, the more effective it becomes at radiating energy back into space.

McHrozni
Click to expand...
Yes. But one doesn't even need to do the calculations to know that the powers of four issue is not causative for y = 5.78x over T ranging plus or minus as described.
macdoc said:
That's hardly a negative feedback....it's just normal radiation budget balancing - unlike Greece.

A negative feedback would enhance the radiative outflow the way water vapour magnifies C02 forcing in a positive ( currently ) or negative ( cooling orbital ) manner.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So in what sense is what Spencer describes not a negative feedback that enhances the radiative outflow? Or are you referring to the power of four issue mentioned by McHonzi?
 
Last edited:
Sorry I didn't overstate the obvious: See the diagonal straight line? That's the trend. Note that it is straight? It does not show the upward curve of a positive feedback system heading out of control.

So, as things heat up, more heat gets radiated out, clear out to space, through all the CO2. Sounds like the way a system that has been working for millennia would stay stable. Within a range of, oh, say, a degree or two?
 
casebro said:
Sorry I didn't overstate the obvious: See the diagonal straight line? That's the trend. Note that it is straight? It does not show the upward curve of a positive feedback system heading out of control.

So, as things heat up, more heat gets radiated out, clear out to space, through all the CO2. Sounds like the way a system that has been working for millennia would stay stable. Within a range of, oh, say, a degree or two?
Click to expand...

As CO2 rises the setpoint rises. So a degree or two is not the limit.

But we clearly don't want to see that happen.
 
That's a pretty good point. This article by Spencer about radiative balance, co2 warming and negative feedback may be a bit, ummm, subtle or just a different way of thinking about things.

So I'm sure the Warmers will have some good comments once they grasp it (or once Warmer Central starts working on it:D).

But regarding your point, I don't see how one could extrapolate far outside the measured range. At least from the results of this study.
 
Last edited:
"oh, say, a degree or two"? How do you come up with that amazing* estimate? Would, say, 5 degrees be possible?

*sarcasm
 
just a different way of thinking about things.
Click to expand...
so you and 3bodyproblem are just going to redefine climate science terms at your whimsy.....why how how Through the Looking Glass ...LGR will be delighted..:rolleyes:

Edited. Do not change a member's user name in order to insult.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No.

Radiative balance at the upper troposphere is a central premise of the IPCC AR4.

It's a different way of looking at things from that of the Radical Environmentalist of Doom, yes.
 
mhaze said:
The article is in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research
Click to expand...

Just to see if this is another mhaze lie: evidence please.

I'd also like to see the source to were the author claims his creationist tendencies. It's always fun to throw the obvious creationism-ties to AGW denialism in the denialists' faces.

NVM on the last part. Found it. Yes, the guy is a creationist. Disregarded.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom