- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 44,613
- Reaction score
- 14,469
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
In order for the more catastrophic portions AGW to have any value,
the amplified feedbacks described by the IPCC would have to be at the mid to high end of the range.
The feedback process would look something like this,
The input would be warming regardless of source, and the output would be the amplified warming.
If this mechanism exists, it should be possible to test some aspects of the gain.
An example would be that the average GISS temperature between 1880 and 1939 was -.245 C
The average between 150 and 1981 was ZERO.
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots
After the warming in the 1940's the average temperatures never went back down,
so the increase from -.245 to 0, is locked in, and any amplification factors with a latency,
of less than 80 years should be reflected in the temperature record.
If the amplified feedback gain was 2.5 (necessary to get an ECS of 3 C) then the
.245 C increase before 1939 should yield a .61 C increase.
But we have to also back out of the record the direct response increase from the CO2 we have added since 1939.
1.73 * ln(400/311)= .44 C
.61 C + .44 C= 1.05 C, hum! the last non El Nino contaminated year was 2014 at .74 C,
Since the direct response warming of the added CO2 is based in Physics,
the subjective portion, I.E. the amplified feedback, must be where the difference comes from.
If we work our way backwards, .74 - .44 = .3C.
The maximum amount for all the additional variables know and unknown can only be .3 C.
This means that even if we assumed ALL of the remaining warming were caused from the amplified feedback,
the gain of our atmospheric amplifier would be the input times 1.22, or an ECS of just under 1.5 C.
I know many will say that the earlier warming was not caused by CO2, and so does not count,
but the reality is the feedback is a mechanism, and is incapable of resolving the source of the input.
the amplified feedbacks described by the IPCC would have to be at the mid to high end of the range.
The feedback process would look something like this,
The input would be warming regardless of source, and the output would be the amplified warming.
If this mechanism exists, it should be possible to test some aspects of the gain.
An example would be that the average GISS temperature between 1880 and 1939 was -.245 C
The average between 150 and 1981 was ZERO.
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots
After the warming in the 1940's the average temperatures never went back down,
so the increase from -.245 to 0, is locked in, and any amplification factors with a latency,
of less than 80 years should be reflected in the temperature record.
If the amplified feedback gain was 2.5 (necessary to get an ECS of 3 C) then the
.245 C increase before 1939 should yield a .61 C increase.
But we have to also back out of the record the direct response increase from the CO2 we have added since 1939.
1.73 * ln(400/311)= .44 C
.61 C + .44 C= 1.05 C, hum! the last non El Nino contaminated year was 2014 at .74 C,
Since the direct response warming of the added CO2 is based in Physics,
the subjective portion, I.E. the amplified feedback, must be where the difference comes from.
If we work our way backwards, .74 - .44 = .3C.
The maximum amount for all the additional variables know and unknown can only be .3 C.
This means that even if we assumed ALL of the remaining warming were caused from the amplified feedback,
the gain of our atmospheric amplifier would be the input times 1.22, or an ECS of just under 1.5 C.
I know many will say that the earlier warming was not caused by CO2, and so does not count,
but the reality is the feedback is a mechanism, and is incapable of resolving the source of the input.
