…
…
h/t Alistair.
|
|
||||
|
Here’s an idea for commenters to sink their teeth into — Stephen Wilde postulates a mechanism where convection can neutralize the effect of changes in greenhouse gases. The focus in David’s series of blog posts has been on radiation, but the troposphere is governed by convection. The tropopause is the boundary where convection runs out of oomph, and above the tropopause, in the stratosphere, radiation rules supreme. Airliners like to fly at the bottom of the stratosphere (“thirty thousand feet”), just above the convection and water vapor in the troposphere, because it’s calm. But sometimes turbulence from the troposphere punches up into the stratosphere, so think of Fig 1 below if you are asked to suddenly sit in your seat and fasten your seat belt. All the focus on radiation imbalances tends to ignore the powerful effects of gravity and convection. To get a sense of how important gravity is, ponder that a mere 3km above the surface the pressure is 300hpa lower, but gravity stops the surface air from rushing up and equalizing that. Imagine if there were two sites on the ground where pressure was, say, 1000hpa and 700hpa, and they were only three kilometers apart, we’d have some kind of monster Cat-10 cyclone on our hands. (If gravity ever “stopped”, we get some sense of just how fast the air would leave the planet.) I have this vision of the tropopause as being flat (as it is in so many diagrams) but Stephen Wilde points out that it’s a lumpy roiling creature. Sometimes it’s a lot further or closer to the surface than the “average” and in that variation lies a kind of loophole. Air is constantly rising and falling in a tricky “adiabatic” way — where blobs of air (officially called “parcels”) rise and fall without mixing with the surrounding air. A blob heats up over a desert, say, and rises, expanding to the the top of the tropopause (or overshooting it). Blobs of cold air can also sink and reverse that process, but Wilde points out that it isn’t symmetrical. The blobs can overshoot at the top, then slide and mix with the stratosphere in a non-adiabatic way, until they reach a lower altitude before turning into a “parcel” and sinking back to the surface. That gap where the air slides from a high spot in the bumpy tropopause to a low point is important.
The troposphere is constantly churning – low pressure systems work like vacuum cleaners drawing warm air up from the surface to the tropopause. High pressure cells do the opposite, drawing in cold air from the tropopause and pulling it back down to the surface. Generally the high’s are broad and slow moving, and the lows are smaller, faster and there are more of them. There is constant interplay between convection and radiation, with convection attempting to follow the lapse rate but radiation distorting it. The “lapse rate” is how quickly it cools as one ascends — on average about 6.5 C per km of vertical ascent. If the air were perfectly dry it would be nearer 10 C per km (the dry adiabatic lapse rate), and if it were as wet as could be then it would drop to around 5 C per km (the moist or saturated adiabatic lapse rate). Stephen Wilde, who has a long and avid interest in meteorology, explains an idea he has on interplay between radiation, convection and lapse rates. Though it is not quantified, it is worth a discussion. See where that leads… — Jo —————————————- Neutralizing Radiative Imbalances Within Convecting AtmospheresStephen Wilde, 3 October 2015 This article sets out a simple mechanism whereby planetary atmospheres can be rendered thermally stable over time despite huge variations in the atmospheric content of radiatively active molecules such as greenhouse gases, material released by volcanic outbreaks of a vast size, and material vaporized in large asteroid or meteor strikes. It is established science that convective adjustments can stabilise or neutralise radiative imbalances: Keep reading → It used to be that musicians would protest at environmental damage. Now most of them support industry, banks, corporations. Making up for that, the very talented, Minnesotans for Global Warming (M4GW) Where have all the artists gone? Fooled by green poseurs, every one… — Jo h/t Lance Ian Plimer has a new book out today, as usual, skewering sacred cows. “Only when Third World children can do homework at night using cheap coal-fired electricity can they escape from poverty.” From the press release:  Click to buy from Connor Court Publishing HEAVEN AND HELL: THE POPE CONDEMNS THE POOR TO ETERNAL POVERTY by Professor Ian Plimer The recent papal Encyclical was on climate and the environment. This book criticises the Encyclical and shows that we have never lived in better times, that cheap fossil fuel energy has and is continuing to bring hundreds of millions of people from peasant poverty to the middle class and that the alleged dangerous global warming is a myth. I have great respect for the Pope’s sincere wishes to end pollution and poverty. We all share the same sentiments. The solution is to use cheap coal-fired electricity and not to demonise coal and other fossil fuels. The Industrial Revolution and the growth of East Asia and India shows that with cheap coal-fired electricity, people are brought out of poverty. It has happened to hundreds of millions of people over the last 20 years. Burning coal releases CO2. This is the gas of life. Plants feed on CO2 and there has been a greening of the Earth with the slight increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The food for all life on Earth has been wrongly demonised as a pollutant. Some 97% of CO2 emissions are natural. It has yet to be shown that CO2 drives global warming and all models of future climate based increases in CO2 have failed. Despite hysterical predictions based on models, planet Earth has not deteriorated due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. Nature and humans add traces of a trace gas CO2 to the atmosphere The planet has not warmed for more than 18 years, models predicted a steady temperature increase over this time and a predicted hot spot over the equator has not eventuated. The models are not in accord with measured reality and are rejected. The science on climate change is far from settled, there is no consensus and there is no demonstrated evidence of human-induced global warming. Keep reading → October 23rd, 2015 | Tags: Plimer (Ian), Unintended Consequences | Category: Global Warming |  Print This Post | |
We’ll spend $10 billion on “Clean Energy” but not even $4 million to analyze whether that money was well spent. Did it change the global climate? Anyone? Lomborg accepts the establishment science, but even with a $4 million sweetener he is too threatening to the monoculture of Australian universities. Turnbull must know that Lomborg’s economic analysis would have awful news for the renewables industry and would show up the emissions trading scheme for the pointless waste of money that it is. This tells us exactly how much Turnbull cares about academic freedom, the Australian taxpayer and the environment. Should we purge Australian universities of people with academic credentials lower than Lomborg?Albert Parker writes to me to point out that Lomborg has 36 papers on scopus (not to mention bestselling books, and countless influential articles in places like The Wall St Journal). If he’s not good enough for Australian academia nor are most of the the people who opposed him and questioned his credentials: Dr. Frank Jotzo, climate economist at the Australian National University, claimed in The Guardian that the Copenhagen Consensus Center methodology “has no academic credibility” and pointed to fundamental flaws in the way the CCC assessed the impacts of climate change. On Scopus he’s published about same papers of Lomborg (Jotzo, Author ID: 6603207810, Documents: 38). Professor Stuart Bunt, of the School of Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, and vice president of the UWA Academic Staff Association, that told DeSmogBlog “Some very young applicants, for example to our own school, have better publication records than Lomborg”. But he himself has only published half as many papers as Lomborg. (Bunt, Stuart, UWA Author ID: 6603083320, Documents: 18). Dr David Glance, the director of the Centre for Software Practice, told DeSmogBlog that “some academics wanted to know if it was too late to cancel the centre entirely”. But Lomborg has published three times as many papers as he has. (Glance, David George, UWA, Author ID: 36709716800, Documents: 11). Keep reading → October 22nd, 2015 | Tags: Lomborg (Bjorn), Universities, UWA | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | Alan Jones pretty much sums up the situation about Christopher Monckton’s prediction last year about Tony Abbott and Stephen Harper. Listen to Monckton from 40 seconds. Listen here at 2GB“They want $100 billion. In a world that’s broke, swimming in debt…” — Alan Jones
King may have been fantasizing and blowing his own trumpet (the Canadian election was not close). But to openly brag in public about removing a democratic government with UN help is remarkable. There will be some agreement signed in Paris, for the sake of PR and to keep the gravy flowing. That is guaranteed. The question is, “how much” will that agreement matter? Will it be all show and no teeth? How many billions will the pretend environmentalists and unproductive parasites drag from the world’s middle-class? How much power will they get to interfere with democracies? Will there be a get-out clause? The Australian BOM, and an actual real debate on global warmingThe interview with Jennifer Marohasy about the BOM is introduced around the 7 minute mark. Around the 9 minute mark Jennifer talks about a remarkable meeting called by MP Craig Kelly yesterday at Parliament House on Monday this week. For the first time, people like John Church was forced to do a live debate with people like Bob Carter and Jennifer. Jennifer described the event in an email. At one point Dennis Jensen pinned down Mark Howden with a question, forcing him to admit that everything he was presenting came from a model rather than direct from data. Straight after that several in the audience left the room. I guess they’d heard enough. Bizarrely, when confronted with a UAH (satellite) graph of temperatures of Australia pausing flat for 17 years, Guldberg dismissed it because he “didn’t know where the data came from” and Howden improbably suggested that combining all the atmospheric layers showed “warming”. Thank goodness Jennifer was there to set them straight! When cornered, establishment scientists flounder because they have been shielded from skeptical questions. Jennifer Marohasy describes question time during the meeting: Guldberg attempted to dominate the question time. Keep reading → Here we get into the nitty-gritty (as much as we can) of the energy coming off the planet. Looking at the spectrum of outgoing infrared we can learn a lot from the Nimbus data. In the graph below we can see a lot more energy comes from certain wavelengths, and given that the curve would follow the “grey” shape if it was a single body emitting, we can also see how some “pipes” are blocked. The CO2 band shows a large obvious indentation, but don’t be fooled, most of that curve looks the same at much lower concentrations of CO2. As CO2 levels rise in our atmosphere there is little effect on the radiance of the coldest parts of the CO2 band, what changes is in the “wings”. The hotter a thing is, the more energy it radiates, so in this graph the higher amounts of OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) are coming off the warmer surface or air closer to it. Turn things upside down in your mind, the high readings come from low-altitude places which are warm (like the surface), and as the readings get lower in radiance, they must be coming from colder spots at higher altitudes. The lowest part of the CO2 absorption band in the graph is in the stratosphere, where it’s very cold. The highest parts of the CO2 band in the graph are from CO2 low in the atmosphere. The “wings” represent emissions from CO2 all the way up and down the vertical air column.  … In terms of “pipes” David has managed to estimate the comparative sizes of different pipes, with a table I haven’t seen elsewhere — which I’ve graphed here. (Though we expect the IPCC crew would have done this ). This graphic below is roughly the size and height of the emissions escaping to space. (The CO2 height is the height of its “average” emitting temperature, which is not that useful, as most of the emissions are coming from lower down and further up rather than at the “average”. We don’t use that height in the analysis that follows.) See below how David calculated this and all his references. I’m surprised at how big the CO2 pipe is. A similar amount of energy is coming off CO2 molecules as is radiating from cloud tops or from the surface? Don’t miss David’s figure 1 below, which is an important graph we will need to refer too. Those emission layers matter!  A rough idea of how much energy is escaping through each pipe, and the average altitudes that the emissions come from. (Note that in the case of CO2 the average emission temperature is about 244 K, which corresponds to a height of 7 km in the troposphere, although the CO2 emissions layer is largely well over 20 km in the stratosphere.) —————————————————————————————– 14. Emission Layer ParametersDr David Evans, 21 October 2015, David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature. We are going to add a model of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to the sum-of-warmings model we completed in the last post. However before we can construct the OLR model we need some basic information about OLR — such as how much OLR comes from each emission layer. In this post we collect that information from various sources. IntroductionWe described how the greenhouse effect works in post 6, where we discussed emission layers and pipes. Most OLR is emitted by the four main emission layers — the CO2 emissions layer, the water vapor emission layer (WVEL), the cloud tops, and the surface. Nearly all OLR is emitted by the main four emission layers plus the ozone and methane emission layers, so in this post we are going to collect parameters on those six emission layers. Keep reading → October 21st, 2015 | Tags: Climate Research 2015, Evans (David) | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | There’s a lot of cheering going on in the lead-up to Paris, but not a lot of action, and definitely, no actual journalism. Newsweek reports on the 81-company-cheer-squad with not a single mention that any of these companies could be investing, getting government kickbacks, or profiting from “climate change”. Newsweek: Obama Finds Corporate Allies for His Climate Change Agenda Much to the White House’s delight, 81 companies have signed the president’s American Business Act on Climate “pledge,” a non-binding resolution that is effectively a vote of confidence in the executive branch heading into international climate talks in Paris later this year. When Exxon supported a few skeptics was that described as a “vote of confidence in skeptical science”? The big agreement is for “collective attention”: The pledge doesn’t create new taxes or rules, but it amounts to an agreement among industry leaders that climate change is real, human-influenced and worthy of collective attention. It amounts to nothing. Welcome to the Cabaret. Who’s in the cheer squad?“The White House on Monday announced that a total of 81 companies, including Alcoa, General Electric and Procter & Gamble, have backed a U.S.-sponsored pledge supporting action to combat climate change. All these companies are not in any way doing this for the profit 😉 “Companies as varied as Apple and Google, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America, Pepsi and Coca-Cola and even General Motors signed off on the White House–backed pledge, which means that they have verbally committed to efforts like purchasing 100 percent renewable energy and reducing deforestation in supply chains. Some may believe; others know a good PR opportunity. And for some it’s just good business. Goldman Sachs puts in $40 billion to renewables: Keep reading → We welcome collaboration, but empty, uninformed ill-will doesn’t help the unresourced skeptics to beat the billion dollar green machine. It’s time for Lucia to admit she got it wrong. Lucia’s second post failed to clarify anything. She didn’t acknowledge that she had not found a single real mistake David’s work, nor did she apologize for getting so much wrong. Having decided everything David was doing was “crud” after reading two paragraphs, she now has the onerous and pointless task of trying to defend a hasty uninformed position. Lucia didn’t have to dig the hole deeper but she tried. To turn her mistaken accusations into something useful she transparently shifts the goals and won’t join the dots. Evans was critiquing Held, Soden, and Pierrehumbert. He described how they relied on partial derivatives of dependent variables, impossibly holding everything else constant in climate and thereby incurring unknown errors. Lucia now says “but they could’ve done it a different way without them” and perhaps hopes no one notices the unspoken admission that David Evans was right. The bizarre thing is that you don’t need a maths degree to know her method is silly on its face. In the real world there is no way to hold temperature, clouds, humidity or anything constant while changing the surface temperature — and mathematical trickery won’t make it so. (Lucia packs the changing variables under a term she calls Rp — which is a bit like hiding income in an offshore tax avoidance scheme.) The bane of basic climate analysis that inevitably it has to use partial derivatives while unrealistically holding all else constant — the issue is ignoring the risk and uncertainty that brings. Notably, Lucia didn’t link to our reply to her first post (despite the post being a request for a reply from David). Nor did she email us either time she published (despite having our emails). Does she want the truth, or just to indulge in point scoring snark? If she’s hoping for an easy target, she’s picked the wrong people. – Jo Lucia Goes Awry Againby Dr David Evans, 20 October 2015, David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Nomenclature David’s post 3: New Science 3: The Conventional Basic Climate Model — In Full David’s post 4: New Science 4: Error 1: Partial Derivatives Lucia’s first post on our posts, at the Blackboard: Questions to David Evans: What do you mean about partial derivatives? Our response to Lucia’s first post: Lucia has a bad day with partial derivatives Lucia’s second post, at the Blackboard: Held & Soden without “hypothetical partials” Our response to Lucia’s second post: Lucia has a bad week on partial derivatives <—- This post
As with Lucia’s first post, having read carefully through her second post and its comments, I’m still waiting for Lucia to find any mistakes in my posts or even made any informed criticism of them. Lucia’s first post alleged I made had mistakes with differentials in post 3 of the series of posts about basic climate models. We showed her in more detail how to do them in our reply, applying an online class note from MIT that I had referenced in the first post. Lucia’s second post has no mention at all about any mistakes with differentials, which I’ll take as implicit acknowledgement that I was right — as were Held and Soden [1], and Pierrehumbert [2], whose model development I was copying. No retraction or apology from Lucia though. No one reading Lucia’s two posts would know that I was correct about differentials all along and Lucia was wrong; they’d get quite the opposite impression. Lucia moves on to the issue of “strictly hypothetical” partial derivativesIn her second post, Lucia moves on to attacking my claim in post 4 that the partial derivatives in the conventional basic climate model, such as the Planck feedback (the reciprocal of the Planck sensitivity, λ0), are “strictly hypothetical”, and she claims that the basic model “can be developed without resorting to these “strictly hypothetical” partials”. As with her first post, Lucia was quite disparaging of me but did not bother to email us — we weren’t so discourteous (we email Lucia immediately we post about her). As anticipated (see Comment 37.1.1), Lucia makes her own derivation of the basic model, aiming to avoid partial derivatives where “everything is held constant”. She thinks she succeeds, but she fails. An alternative approach that got around the obvious problem with the Planck feedback (that it impossibly relies on holding all climate variables constant except OLR and surface temperature*) would clearly be an improvement, but it would almost certainly have been discovered decades ago in a problem space as small and as intensively researched as this. We’ll skip over most of the detail of Lucia’s more complicated approach, and just focus on the crucial piece of her development. Consider the OLR function, R. Lucia does not want to use the arguments used in post 4 for G (or downward flux, ASR – OLR):
where the surface temperature is TS, there are n driver variables V1,…,Vn, and there are m feedback variables, U1,…,Um. (I’ll continue to use the notation in posts 2 to 4, rather than Lucia’s more limited and cumbersome notation.) Because the feedbacks are only functions of the temperature TS — that is, schematically Ui =Ui(TS) — Lucia prefers to write the OLR as
and let R depend on feedbacks via TS . Fair enough. But Lucia wants to avoid using the partial derivative ∂R/∂TS where all the drivers and feedbacks are held constant — this is the “Planck feedback” (which isn’t really a “feedback” as the term is used elsewhere in this series — see post 2 and post 3 where it is discussed and defined). This is important so I’ll stress it: in the standard development in post 3, ∂R/∂TS means the derivative of R with respect to TS when all the drivers and feedbacks are held constant — and since (nearly?) every climate variable depends on feedback, basically this means holding “everything else constant” except the OLR R and temperature TS. Can Lucia develop the basic model without “holding everything else constant” at some point?Lucia splits R into two parts, one where drivers and feedbacks are held constant and one where they can vary, by setting
where she defines Rp (which she also writes as “Rpe“) as the OLR that “would arise on an earth whose temperature is TS” and the values of the feedbacks are the same as the feedbacks “of the current earth”. Also, Rp “does not vary with” the drivers. That is, Rp is OLR as a function of temperature only, and which is independent of the drivers and feedbacks — so Rp is the part of the OLR where the drivers and feedbacks are held constant. The other bit, R-tilda (the R with the squiggly line on top in Eq. (3), which cannot be typed in this text), is just the remainder of the OLR, namely R less Rp — it is the part of OLR that depends on the drivers and feedbacks. Fair enough. Lucia then develops the basic model, successfully — which is no great achievement because she is basically copying the standard approach in Held and Soden but with her different notation. Lucia then goes on to claim, in several variations, that in her formulation of the basic model “partial differential are not taken holding “everything about the climate” constant”. Not so. Lucia’s equations (7) and (9) both contain dRp/dTS, and her result for the ECS in her Eq. (8) thus also contains it. Because she defined Rp as the part of the OLR that holds drivers and feedbacks constant,
Yep, she has the conventional Planck feedback in her formulation too — the derivative of OLR with respect to temperature, holding all drivers and feedbacks constant. Lucia just reinvented the wheel with different notationMerely due to her definition of Rp , she can write the Planck feedback with straight derivative symbols instead of partial derivative symbols. This is mere notational trickery and legerdemain; Lucia is fooling herself and her readers with her multiple claims to the effect that her formulation does not contain partial derivatives that hold everything constant. “Her Planck feedback” is the just same as the conventional Planck feedback — dRp/dTS holds feedbacks constant, and since (nearly?) every climate variable is affected by feedbacks to surface warming, Lucia’s Planck feedback holds “everything about the climate” constant” too. For those interested in more details, here is my analysis of her post.
UPDATE, 20 Oct 2015: Lucia has added an update to her post, a few hours after this post went live. She says
Early in her post Lucia defined Rp(e) with
Is not that holding ice, cloud, and water vapor constant? Does that not imply that Rp holds constant both the feedbacks (ice, cloud, and water vapor are the feedbacks considered in the Held and Soden treatment she is following) and the drivers (CO2 is the only driver in her context)?And does not holding feedbacks and drivers constant hold (pretty much) everything about the climate constant — except for what is involved in the differential ratio, of course? Holding T constant in Lucia’s formulation holds the feedbacks and thus “everything in climate” constant. And yes, Lucia’s Planck feedback is the same number as the conventional one that explicitly holds “everything about climate constant”. In a new development, Lucia did at least email us when she added the update: her entire email reads
Well, at least she emailed us.
*The Planck conditions for evaluating the Planck feedback or sensitivity conventionally are that all else besides tropospheric temperatures and OLR are held constant — so there are no feedbacks, all tropospheric temperatures (including the surface temperature) change in unison, and stratospheric temperatures are unchanged (Soden & Held, 2006, pp. 3355-56). There are some arbitrary choices to be made, such as whether it is the specific or the relative humidities that remain unchanged as the troposphere warms, or what happens at the tropopause.
REFERENCES[1^] Held, I. M., & Soden, B. J. (2000). Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming. Annu. Rev. Energy. Environ., 25:441–75. This seems to be legit: http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/ClimateVol1.pdf. See section 3.4.2, pages 135 – 138 of this pdf. [2^] Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2010). Principles of Planetary Climate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
Remember, all developed countries are going Green, and Clean Energy is everywhere. It’s only (insert your country) that is falling behind. When you hear this, think of Spain. It is so green it’s just passed a tax on solar panel generation, so solar users finally pay for grid backup. This Spanish government has been building a renewable future with so much enthusiasm that their wind industry is described as “striken” and it’s estimated that the current government there has cost “65,000 green jobs”.* That solar tax: “The tax will be introduced in the next six months, according to a statement from the Ministry of Industry, Energy, and Tourism. It will apply to solar power systems with a capacity of over 10 kilowatts. The Ministry said the tax is intended to ensure that solar panel users contribute to the cost of maintaining the country’s electrical grid, as they use it as a backup supply. “ They’ve been trying to get this tax through for a long time. It’s described as unpopular by the usual suspects and, improbably, as a tax on the “Sun” (but will the sun pay, I wonder?). Supposedly, I imagine, the indignation at solar users having to pay is because it’s a human right to have access to a national grid and back up generation, and slaves should install and maintain that without being paid? This evil government thinks businesses selling solar energy to the grid should be treated … like businesses, and worse, suffer from free market prices. Oh the horror: “At the same time, residential customers have to pay a series of charges — dubbed a “tax on the sun” by detractors — and have to give away any power they deliver to the grid for free. Energy producers wanting to sell excess power to the grid at spot-price rates must register as a business. Zero wind power megawatts were installed in Spain in the first half of 2015: Madrid, 27th July 2015. The worst predictions have come true: Spain does not attract investment in new wind power capacity. In the first half of 2015, not a single megawatt has been installed in the country, leaving the total at 22,986 MW Wind power, remember, is competitive and cost effective. I can’t think why Spanish investors have all disappeared. (Which strangely happened in Australia too. No subsidies to suck on?) Clean Green Energy is not blooming in Spain: Keep reading → October 19th, 2015 | Tags: Renewable Energy, Solar Energy (PV), Wind Power | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | |  … In most ways, David Evans’ alternative model is exactly the same as the conventional model. But a reconnection of one forcing, and an additional factor, can make all the difference. Finally, climate model architecture is getting analyzed and discussed — the conventional structure has been in place for over 40 years. In the conventional basic model the radiation imbalance caused by CO2 is treated like extra sunlight, amplified by the same feedback processes that amplify warming caused by the sun. But as we explained, the effects of CO2 are not just confined to the surface of Earth, but spread through the atmosphere. In the alternative model the warming caused by CO2 is allowed to have its own unique response. Only after the separate “warmings” of the Sun and CO2 are calculated can they be added together. The conventional model adds them too soon, while they are still radiation imbalances, and assumes the Earth’s climate responds to both in the same way — it’s too simplistic. David’s model also allows for other factors to change cloud cover, with the addition of an input for externally driven albedo (EDA). In conventional models, clouds are just a feedback to surface warming, but we already know that anything that affects the particles that “seed” clouds can dramatically change the amount of sunlight arriving on Earth’s surface. These factors include cosmic rays and aerosols, and although we don’t know exactly what these are, we have data on how much energy arrives on Earth’s surface so we can still allow for the effects of whatever it is that changes the Earth’s albedo (reflectiveness). — Jo —————————————- 13. The Sum-of-Warmings ModelDr David Evans, 18 October 2015, David Evans’ Basic Climate Models Home, Intro, Previous, Next, Nomenclature. The sum-of-warmings model is the expression of the organizing theme of the alternative model, namely that each climate driver has its own specific sensitivity and feedbacks (“response”), and that the small surface warmings due to the various drivers are independently calculated then added. The assumed linearity of the climate system for small perturbations means that small temperature perturbations due to the various climate drivers do not significantly affect one another — so the effects of the various climate drivers superpose. Solar Response
|
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2025 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Recent Comments