?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
10 February 2010 @ 10:57 pm
Lindzen and Choi and then some draft  
Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs.

Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

This groundbreaking paper does not consider the effect that long term trends in the geomagnetic potential (the flux height boundaries of the earth's magnetosphere/ height potential of the atmosphere) have on the outgoing radiation fluxes. A shorter atmosphere will release more energy because a shorter magnetosphere is stronger (not worn down by the sun's energy releases) .

When you hear about abrupt climate change, if they are not talking about the onset of an ice age they are talking nonsense. Abrupt climate change can never mean global warming because the temperature potential of the earth depends upon how tall its atmosphere is which depends primarily upon the height potential of the magnetosphere allowed by the sun's energy management system and secondarily upon how warm the oceans are.

Andy Adkins
In reality, a warming atmosphere is less capable of concentrating energy because it is made taller by the increase of atmospheric gases like water vapor & CO2 which encourage the photosynthetic symphony that increases the amount of Oxygen Hydrogen and Nitrogen which also expand the atmosphere to its full geomagnetic potential
A colder planet, on the other hand, is a lot more stormy and so everyone should expect more precipitation of all types.

From a global perspective and as an example of multidecadal ocean patterns, drought is much more common when there is an el nino (warm pacific) and flooding is more common during la ninas (cold pacific). Interestingly however, seasonality is a primary determinant of what weather events are to be expected with each pattern. El nino winters are wet because the increase in upper tropospheric response amplitude in the tropics and subtropics captures more moisture (water vapor) for transport into the shrinking and shrunken atmosphere of low sun angle winter....and so Of course places like Rio will be hot during el ninos when they are bathed by high sun angles because the taller atmosphere experiences greater difficulty in concentrating energy (more atmospheric gases and their differentiations encourage more wind shear)

(we are still gradually heading into a geomagentic potential maximum...yeah there are sunspots but their net impact upon the earth's geomagnetic potential is very negligible and thus do not compare to effects created by the sun's total energy management system).
</span>
Andy Adkins


I can understand why some can see signs of warming in reported data. The AGW denialist community however disputes the verification methods used in AGW studies, because the studies are increasingly narrowing the field of temperature observation sites to locations that present a warm bias (i.e water buoys are placed in shallower waters and the primary land temperature recording stations used in computations are lower altitude, lower latitude, and located in concreted urban centers. )

First Land temperatures: I defer to Joe D'Aleo
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/13/how-bad-is-the-global-temperature-data/
... See More
Global Data buoy network http://oceanmotion.org/images/gatheringdata/globpop.gif

Ocean temperature anomalies http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.2.11.2010.gif

notice the lack of recording stations in higher latitudes. Doesn't seem odd that where data is not recorded water temperatures are reported to be anomalously warmer

projected actual sea surface temperatures
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global100.cf.gif

The actual parameters of temperature forcing demonstrate that AGW is not possible under any conditions...Whether the sun is causing a gradual warming by releasing more energy and therefore weakening the density of the earth's magnetic field....or if the sun is releasing less energy and thereby allowing the earth's magnetic field density to increase...which leads to the release of more infrared radiation

When the earth is warming, no matter what after feedback lags*glaciation,-glacial melt cooling oceans, rebalancing of precipitation patterns* the concentration of all atmospheric gases must increase because they 1) expand molecularly 2) and are produced by warm weather processes

It does become too cold for heavy precipitation and warming from this state does lead to increases in precipitation ...I have links to these studies in related file folders...I will dig for them when I have more time
Thu at 11:29am ·
Randy LeBlanc
Randy LeBlanc
@andy -- Exactly
Thu at 1:07pm