Bucket Analogy for Spencer's Feedbacks

The latest paper by Roy Spencer claiming negative feedback from AGW really has the alarmists choking on their baguettes, so I thought I would try to explain it with an analogy.

Feedbacks represent a secondary effect, but its not that much harder to understand with the following analogy.

Imagine the atmosphere as a bucket. Short-wave solar radiation pours in the top (yellow arrow), some splashes out (orange arrow), and long wave radiation out a hole in the bottom (red arrow). The level of water in the bucket is determined by the relative sizes of the flows, in turn determined by the size of the holes.

The level of water is the observable global surface temperature (green).

The primary effect is this. If the radiation pouring in the top increases, the level of water (temperature) in the bucket must increase until the flow out the hole in the bottom matches the flow coming in the top. This relationship is rigorously determined by laws of conservation.

Feedback represents a tendency for the water (temperature) to depart from this relationship. We can analogise this by varying the size of the holes in the top or the bottom of the bucket.

Positive feedback can be imagined to occur in two ways. Either the size of the top of the bucket increases as the water level increases, so less splashes out, or the size of the hole in the bottom decreases, so less flows out. The latter mechanism is represented by such effects as greenhouse gasses holding back the outgoing radiation.

Negative feedback is when the water level increases less than expected, and could be due to the hole in the top of the bucket decreasing, due to increasing albedo (SW reflection from cloud tops) or increasing size of the hole in the bottom (decreasing low level cloud letting more LW radiation out, as in the Lindzen Iris effect).

Now Spencer makes at least two interesting claims. The first is that most previous studies have ‘blundered’ because feedbacks are essentially unobservable from temperature only. This can be seen from the analogy. If the level of the water increased by 10 units, but feedback caused it to reduce by 9 units, then the net effect of an increase of one unit is indistinguishable from all of the other possibilities.

The second claim is that the only significant observable feedback from examining the most accurate satellite temperature and outgoing radiation data is a strong negative feedback. That is, when the water level increases, the size of the hole in the top decreases or the size of the hole in the bottom of the bucket increases to let more radiation out.

Now if Spencer is correct the only argument that alarmists have left is that positive feedback (and correspondingly high climate sensitivity) is necessary to explain glacial-interglacial transitions of 5C every 100,000 years or so. Well there are so many unknowns that far back, and changes in surface albedo from changing ice sheets are a stronger effect than CO2 anyway, so to base your argument on somethng so vague, and distant, just sounds silly.

And silly is how the alarmists are looking more and more these days. First they put their faith in an IPCC that might be put-down due to misrepresentation. Then they rely on models that have been known to be ‘running hot’. Cite unprecedented temperatures based on 1000 year thermometers that don’t work. And now, blundering into false interpretations of feedbacks that they didn’t understand properly in the first place.


0 thoughts on “Bucket Analogy for Spencer's Feedbacks

  1. David, Good description but I would have added a clarification to the top of the bucket. Instead of saying the hole at the top decreases one could say that the area for incoming radiation is decreased which causes more reflection. An additional point is that from time to time the intensity (or strength) of the incoming radiation (including cosmic rays) increases or decreases a small amount. The effect of changes in intensity (eg solar cycle length) is not well understood but many investigators are finding a linkage to climate changes.

  2. Pingback: bateria do laptopa samsung

  3. Pingback: build muscle fast

  4. Pingback: strona firmy

  5. Pingback: livecooking

  6. Pingback: see this website

  7. Pingback: web link

  8. Pingback: strona

  9. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  10. Pingback: how to fuck

  11. Pingback: strona

  12. Pingback: site here

  13. Pingback: tani sylwester

  14. Pingback: witryna

  15. Pingback: polecam

  16. Pingback: ruchanie

  17. Pingback: zobacz tutaj

  18. Pingback: oferta

  19. Pingback: kliknij link

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s