What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pot Lid Hypothesis

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
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-
The ocean holds 97% of the total water on the planet; 78% of global precipitation
occur over the ocean, and it is the source of 86% of global evaporation.
Evaporation from the sea surface keeps the oceans from overheating. If there
were no oceans, only land, the earth's greenhouse effect would lead to a surface
temperature far too high. If the earth were in radiative equilibrium, with an
atmosphere, the surface temperature would be 67°C. This does not happen
because water evaporates from the surface, mostly from tropical seas, cooling the surface. The hydrological cycle keeps the greenhouse effect from heading to
an overly hot planet. Sunlight warms the surface, mostly the tropical seas. The
seas lose heat by evaporation (latent heat flux). Winds carry the vapor away from
tropics. When the vapor condenses as rain, mostly in the ITCZ, it releases the
latent heat, which warms the air, which drives the atmospheric circulation. Etc.
This result of the hydrological cycle is of over riding importance. Without it we
would not live on a habitable planet.

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)
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,025
Reaction score
7,789
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
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.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
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.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,651
Reaction score
36,894
Points
2,290
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?
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,662
Points
48
Location
Maine
Reality trumps laboratory experimentation, Cru.

If the findings of a test do not jibe with reality, the test is flawed.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
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.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,651
Reaction score
36,894
Points
2,290
Reality trumps laboratory experimentation, Cru.

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

Astrologists say that all the time.

AGW, it's just not science
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,651
Reaction score
36,894
Points
2,290
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.

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?
 

konradv

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
30,531
Reaction score
6,540
Points
1,130
Location
Baltimore
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?

What would be non-scientific about it? The statement seems to bre right on, especially the "you fool" part. :cool:
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
121,651
Reaction score
36,894
Points
2,290
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?

What would be non-scientific about it? The statement seems to bre right on, especially the "you fool" part. :cool:


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
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,025
Reaction score
7,789
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
I have read about half of the article so far. Seems pretty straight up, no nonsense on his part. His assumption that the mixing of the layers and densities has been ignored, and not taken into account by present models is the crux of his arguement. And, of course, that such a mixing represents a negative feedback from the water vapor.

However, he admits about halfway through the article that the models have done a good job of prediction up to the present as for the actual temperatures at the surface. Not so good at altitude. So essentially what he is stating is that the models are good at present, but show too rapid a warming in the future.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
Bump for jc.

More info on your topic.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,025
Reaction score
7,789
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Good bump. Here we see after 4 and 1/2 years that the warming is rapidly increasing. So it looks like the models were more accurate than his hypothesis. This with a declining TSI.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,864
Reaction score
1,775
Points
290
Location
N/A
Reality trumps laboratory experimentation, Cru.

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

You assume our knowledge of reality is perfect
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
98,050
Reaction score
12,281
Points
2,180
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.
Ian, the issue I have with back radiation is the missing hot spot. And the only way alarmist can be right is back radiation. Now you agree back radiation, don't agree with the alarmists, so what happens to that supposed back IR when it reaches the surface? It disappears?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,864
Reaction score
1,775
Points
290
Location
N/A
AGW does not require a tropospheric hotspot. It requires stratospheric cooling.
 
OP
I

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
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.
Ian, the issue I have with back radiation is the missing hot spot. And the only way alarmist can be right is back radiation. Now you agree back radiation, don't agree with the alarmists, so what happens to that supposed back IR when it reaches the surface? It disappears?


personally I dont think you have a clue as to what the missing hotspot is, or why it might be important.

now you ask what back radiation does? how many times do we have to go over the same things? mentally you just dont seem to be able to grasp anything.

back radiation from the atmosphere returns to the surface and cancels out some of the radiation from the surface. the minimum back radiation would be 235w. eg the sun inputs 165w (measured) to the surface, the surface gives off 400w (measured), therefore the 235w deficit must be coming back from the atmosphere.

there is way more to this but there is no sense in going further because even this first basic step is incomprehensible to you.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,864
Reaction score
1,775
Points
290
Location
N/A
I know it is not required by AGW. Stratospheric cooling IS, it cannot be produced by any other atmospheric process and is present globally, Show us different if you think that to be the case.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top