Chapter 08, Variability and Change in the Ocean

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Chapter 08, Variability and Change in the Ocean file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Chapter 08, Variability and Change in the Ocean book. Happy reading Chapter 08, Variability and Change in the Ocean Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Chapter 08, Variability and Change in the Ocean at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Chapter 08, Variability and Change in the Ocean Pocket Guide.

The Negative feedback is just wrong. The response should be less than the force. If the force is tied to the response, then the force must diminish, as it does incorrectly in the positive feedback illustration. The classic negative feedback is a pendulum, either frictionless with no decay, or in a viscous medium with resistance and decay. When it is over damped, it does not oscillate but returns to steady state gradually. Under damped is a decaying oscillation. The classic positive feedback is a rod of finite diameter standing on end.

It will return, oscillate and teeter. But once you push the centroid of the rod pass the vertical over the edge of the base, positive feedback exceeds the restoring forces and it falls over. In the second graph he is showing a system in control, oscillating in a given range minding its own business when along comes a forcing.

Not much happens because the system is controlled by regulating feedbacks. The drawing could be better, but it matches his text. In the first graph, the sensitive system amplifies the forcing and decays with the forcing. No indication of system dampening, just for whatever reason the forcing appears to be damped. Maybe we run out of gas. CO2 reduces the diurnal temperature range. When all is said an done, Ein will still equal E out. So I would stick with poor and confusing instead of backwards, but both apply to climate science.

A step change in CO2 could initiate a damped oscillation, either with positive or negative feedback. A gradual rise in CO2 can only initiate a gradual rise in warming as a response. It is a convolution of an infinite number of step changes with their step change system responses. What you are implying is that an increase in CO2 will somehow change the amplitude of unknown natural frequency source of oscillaiton. That could be possible if CO2 is changing the tuning parameters of a natural frequency feedback. I believe that is what the author is proposing.

Assuming that a CO2 pulse perturbation would have the same impact as a gradual increase is not a guarantee it will. CO2 and water vapor feedback are suppose to decrease diurnal temperature range which is a known oscillation that along with seasonal oscillations are likely creates other oscillations.

A dynamic system versus a static system. Cappy is getting flustered because he thought he held the job of chief confuser. Or was that the Chief? Tom waits.. Greater than that requires positive feedbacks to CO2. X is offering two views, the first is forcing drives everything there is zero internal variability, zero system memory. That is a totally unique situation right? But to get back to my point no one including Arno has explained how to predict timing and intensity of ENSO events.

If anyone thinks differently then please produce a year schedule of upcoming ENSO events showing start dates, end dates, and magnitude. Thanks in advance. The current thinking is that 1. Anything beyond this is due to slow positive feedbacks such as long-term albedo changes and biotic activity changes.

Hansen describes the slow feedbacks here J. Hansen, M. Sato, G. Russell, and P.

  • Looking for other ways to read this?.
  • A Darker Voyage. (Adventures of Jerrix the Cat. Book 12);
  • Follow journal.

Webster, The current thinking is that 1. Current thinking is changing.

Northeast - Fourth National Climate Assessment

You are living in the past. Try to catch up. Only in the last quarter of the last century has CO2 rise been well correlated with temperature rise, and not before, and not since. I think Murry Salby felt some urgency to do something with regards to the predicament he was in.

And that was to lash out on his way out the door. If there is a nugget of wisdom buried in his videos it is certainly lost amongst the the rest of his lunatic theory, e.

Typical ad hominem nastiness. And no real effort to address the point of his talk. But at least, from the delay in responding, you tried to listen to it.

Please wait....

The fact is that his suggestion that pCO2 has been moving around quite a bit, including often being higher than ppm, fits right in with the suggestion that pCO2 tends to move as the integral of Global Average Temperature. The sentence talking about the way Murry was treated, alarmists, or at least socialists, stalking horses, and agendas made that quite clear. What I was doing was guessing about the motivations for a certain disgusting act, part of a sequence of disgusting acts. And were trying to suppress publication of his work. Go to in the video where he shows a graph and falsely claims the CO2 increase is scaled to represent the warming rate predicted by models.

But his graph is scaled to show 0.

  • To Say Nothing of the Dog (S.F. MASTERWORKS)!
  • El Niño–Southern Oscillation - Wikipedia.
  • Think Big, Live Large: How to Succeed in Business and Life: Incorporating The Power of Persistence and Purpose.
  • Complete Guide To ATV Extreme Fun and Thrills!!
  • What is internal variability??
  • Your Band Is A Virus – Behind-The-Scenes And Viral Marketing For The Independent Musician.

I ask you, what model ever predicted that? I suspect Salby is a closet climate denier. Far too much strange material like this in his presentation. The one for the model world is a different scale. Further, if if they thought he was right that doesnt make him right. They could be stupidier than he is. Bottom line. Nothing of consequence, nothing of scientific consequence follows from what they did to him. They let him go because he was right 2. And I could probably think of others. IMO, based on what I know of the fields involved, he has a very good point.

Are his numbers right? It seems likely that there are efforts to suppress publication of his work, of the sort heard of in Climategate. Calling attention to that apparent suppression might contribute to getting it published, and given proper scientific attention. Thus, I spend time on it I could be spending on other things. The graph has been scaled to show 0. It does seem to be scaled to that actually 0. It close to matches the time from about , and post-Pinatubo , but a figure of 0.

Associated Data

A trend at roughly this slope is certainly present, from , interrupted by a single cooling dip from Pinatubo. I doubt this was intended as deliberate deception, but a better explanation is certainly necessary. Of course, if his work were subjected to the standard process, or even published as a blog post, these questions could be addressed. However, the dynamics of RS are not well understood and the global flux remains poorly constrained. Ecosystem warming experiments, modelling analyses and fundamental biokinetics all suggest that RS should change with climate.

RS changes with temperature as do other aspects of biokinetics globally. This is in addition to simpler — but still quite complex — chemical changes. There is no doubt at all that a portion of CO2 increases are quite natural and responding to natural changes in global temperature. Salby is a convenient whipping boy — but he is far from alone in mainstream biology — the idea is essentially sound. I listened to his presentation, long ago.

23. El Niño

Some professor called me two weeks ago and begged me to listen to it again and bring it up the chain to the guys who have 3 initials after their names. I watched again. I will not recommend his work and wont waste the time of smart people by suggesting that they look at it. Wow, that is a really bad and horrible way of promoting somebody.

He can do what Hansen does and post his stuff online. Or he can go to low impact journals that are less dominated by politics. The climarati should never be met head on, at least thats my experience. One just has to watch the video of Salby and sense the clenched fury that is barely concealed below the surface.

Chapter 11 Late Pliocene-Pleistocene Antarctic Climate Variability at Orbital and Suborbital Scale

And the way he is very deliberate and measured, filled with pregnant pauses. We all have to be students of human nature, to figure out who is pulling a fast one and who is sincere. Watching Salby in action, I have made up my mind. I have also done the homework on CO2 outgassing and can show it is not an integral response. As lolwot noticed, his last ref to Feynman places him on the denier team.