Pot Lid Hypothesis

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Oct 15, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Oct-2011-v2.pdf

    a very interesting paper but not for the faint hearted. deals with such things as how the GCMs originally limited calculations for PV=nRT because of insufficient computing power but never put it back in once supercomputers were available. a good description of the missing hotspot and possible reasons for it. there was a fun quote from a non-Hansen area of NASA-
    I have only skimmed it so far but it brings up a lot of points I've heard in other places, like an indepth dialogue on air pressure and rain drops between GISS climate modeller Gavin Schmitt (Real Climate) and others at Judy Curry's site Climate Etc. there is even a reference to the crazy Hungarian who's theory set Brooks down this path. (I still think Miskolczi has an outside chance of a Nobel if his idea pans out. Elegance and Beauty often turn out to also be Truth, at least according to Gell-Mann and Feynman)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,471
    Thanks Received:
    5,416
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,315
    Good find, Ian. I am going to print it out and take it to work to study on breaks and lunch. I hope this fellow is correct. I doubt that he is, but it would be better for all of us were he correct.

    http://declineeffect.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Pot-Lid-Oct-2011-v2.pdf

    Conclusion
    I believe that this error in handling density is the root cause of the consistently alarming
    forecasts dating back to the 1960’s, and that without such forecasts, the present global
    outlook regarding climate change would be very different.
    Again, I want to stipulate that we have observed some real warming in recent decades and
    that it is cause for concern, especially in the Arctic where the negative water vapor feedback
    has a much smaller effect. If we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere on an exponentially
    increasing scale, then at some point a disaster will happen.
    It is a great relief to think that it
    will not occur in the next few decades, but if the trend continues, then in another century or
    two I think it eventually must.
    I also need to acknowledge that there are calculations in the literature of the climate’s overall
    sensitivity to greenhouse gases that do not rely directly on modeling. For example,
    paleoclimate studies have shown a correlation between temperature and CO2 during the last
    series of ice ages. However, modeling results predate most of this analysis, and have exerted
    a powerful influence on it. A great many assumptions and simplifications must be made to
    convert the fluctuations of trapped CO2 in 400,000-year-old ice cores into supporting
    evidence for a positive water vapor feedback. (For one thing, CO2 levels tend to rise hundreds
    of years after temperatures do, which makes it hard to prove that they caused the warming
    trend, much less that warming then leads to runaway uptake of water vapor.) If positive water
    vapor feedback had been shown to be an artifact of model design four decades ago, I think
    paleoclimate studies would have taken a very different direction.
     
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    thanks Old rocks, I'm glad you found it interesting.

    there are many areas in the science of global warming that I dont feel are supported by strong enough evidence to be considered 'settled'. while this article may or may not be of dramatic importance it does show an area that has not been fully explored. I was left with a similar hollow feeling when Gavin Schmidt was discussing how precipitation was handled in the GISS E model a while back. Spencer and Dessler are both wrong but who is least wrong? evidence for feedbacks are mixed but the Null Hypothesis pretty strongly suggests that all perturbations to the system are damped. the actual areas of CO2 absorbtion are already 3/4s used up, more doublings are farther apart and less effective and more likely to trigger a compensating action.

    I came to this argument late. if I had looked at only the evidence available in th 90's and early 00's I might have been swung to the alarmist's side. but the evidence available now doesnt support catastrophe and the IPCC is showing cancerous decay in its management. either you or I may be right but the evidence isnt conclusive for either side yet.
     
  4. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,215
    Thanks Received:
    14,908
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,963
    Hmmmm, I see, that's highly significant.

    I still didn't notice any laboratory experiment testing this "Hypotheses" Is this another one of those "The Earth is the laboratory, you Fool" non-scientific answer situations?
     
  5. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Reality trumps laboratory experimentation, Cru.

    If the findings of a test do not jibe with reality, the test is flawed.
     
  6. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,192
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    did you guys read any of the pdf? the triangular property of the gas law makes computation difficult and leads to nonsense answers if you allow vertical movement of air between specified layers. so for a hundred years physicists have been taking the shortcut of imagining only heat and water vapour travelling across the boundaries, not actual air which is only allowed to move sideways in the model. no one questioned it before because it has always been done that way. this guy is pointing out some of the reasons why taking that shortcut can affect the calculation of feedbacks and other climate parameters.
     
  7. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,215
    Thanks Received:
    14,908
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,963
    Astrologists say that all the time.

    AGW, it's just not science
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,215
    Thanks Received:
    14,908
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,963
    Einstein imagined traveling at the speed of light and his theories got tested. Why do you Warmers greet the lab like Dracula in a garlic field at sunrise?
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  9. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,559
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,672
    What would be non-scientific about it? The statement seems to bre right on, especially the "you fool" part. :cool:
     
  10. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,215
    Thanks Received:
    14,908
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,963

    Mercury and Jupiter enhance success because people are open to seeing other sides of the story. Yes, people can step back and mull over the other directions in which they could go. Your relationship changes when the two people in it openly reveal feelings under a Cancer Moon and we have as much real science backing this statement as there is for Manmade Global Warming
     

Share This Page