Pot Lid Hypothesis

[IanC]

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.

The GCMs produce a distinct hotspot in their forecasts. This is highly suggestive that they are not modelling atmospheric physics correctly, especially the water vapour feedback. Without the strong feedbacks assumed there is no large temperature increase. No catastrophe, no tipping point.

 

[Crick]

In what way do you believe they are getting water vapour feedback incorrect?

 

[mamooth]

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

First, it's not a spot. It's a band in the upper troposphere, above the tropics.

Second, it's not hot. It's quite cold there. It's just hotter than it used to be.

Third, it's not missing. For example, Sherwood and Nishant (2012) illustrates it very clearly, by using radiosonde data.

Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...F5BA2B55F36705DB69E.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

For another paper that shows the hotspot, we have Po-Chedley et al (2015), which goes about it by fixing an error in the satellite data processing model.

Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1

The tropospheric hotspot is another good example of how a non-trivial prediction of the models initially didn't match observations, and upon further investigation, it was found observations were wrong and the models were correct. That is, it's another vindication of how good the climate models are. That gives some people a bad case of sour grapes, so they go off into conspiracy theories about how all the data has been fudged.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol........all Im seeing on this thread is a lot of theory being bantered about.

That fact alone points to another fact: we still have much to learn about what makes the climate tick. Still much to be determined about which factors are significant........and which factors..........are not.

Opinions are like..............well, assholes s0ns!!!

 

[jc456]

Bump for jc.

More info on your topic.

ok I've read through page 20. For the most part, the explanation of density, volume, mass, pressure, convection, circulation in zones and columns is consistent with what I've been looking at. The only issue I have is he is still presenting CO2 as some warming agent to the earth and I do not accept that. He also states that the poles are warming fastest due to greenhouse gases; his comment:

Indeed, because greenhouse warming is faster near the poles, the intensity of convection on a regional scale can easily wind up inversely correlated with the amount of ACDA that is needed.

The mere fact that the poles are ice defeats his warming air model upwards through the atmosphere from ocean water. Release of water vapor skyward as a result of warmer water is his point, and with ice there will be no water vapor, so explain how the poles get more heat if he believes in columns and zones of the atmosphere and it is dry air. his own words:
Because there is an explicit relationship between the surface pressure and the air mass within each layer we assume that water mass can change within the layer by physical parameterizations but dry air mass cannot.

He explains himself out of his own hypothesis by the greenhouse gas statement. He's lost me after he agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. it would have been nice to have had an experiment that shows the warming properties of CO2 while he was doing his paper and a change in CO2 volume.

I stopped reading at the hot spot section, cause he starts wandering away from his water vapor cools the surface at the beginning.

His conclusion is still doom and gloom just out a little further. Sorry, I don't buy that CO2 is evil theory.

 

[jc456]

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.

yeah because you all think that 4% of a gas in an atmosphere heats the surface twice as much as the sun. wow. again, magic IR that you can't prove. Still can't. Dude, you wish to shut me up, then prove your back radiation theory with evidence and not some dude's calculation of thought.

 

[Old Rocks]

The repeated displays of vast ignorance on this board is getting really tiresome. Best not to even engage the trolls, just post the scientific evidence and let those with adequate intellect judge what is believable for themselves.

 

[jc456]

The repeated displays of vast ignorance on this board is getting really tiresome. Best not to even engage the trolls, just post the scientific evidence and let those with adequate intellect judge what is believable for themselves.

so you can't prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I get that. thanks

 

[Crick]

Of course he can. That has been an established fact since Angstrom.

 

[jc456]

Of course he can. That has been an established fact since Angstrom.

dude than post the experiment that CO2 releases what it absorbs. CO2 gas helps cool the earth, it is not a heater. And you dwarfs have never ever proven it. I love it. Go ahead and insult me fool. I don't care if you haven't noticed. But dude, I know you have zero evidence for your sad comic relief. This thread demonstrates the complexities of all of climate. The zones, or pot lids, makes total sense, it's why there are clouds at specific heights in the sky. The dude even validates that a thunder head pulls all of the moisture from the surface up when it is building and does it in minutes. wow, it's what Billy said. See, the magic keeps following us and not you. and back radiation, hahahhahahahaahahahahahahaa, if there was truly that, the earth would be on fire, but hey you can't figure that out.

 

[Crick]

Virtually ZERO water vapor rises above the tropopause. The tropopause is a L-O-O-O-O-O-NG way from the ToA. Do you see the problem laddie?

There's also the problem that he assumes increasing temperature will increase density. It does not. It DECREASES density.

And then there is the obvious point that he does not identify a single model that exhibits his purported behavior. Nor has he simply created a model to either demonstrate what he says is being done wrong or one that works properly per his concepts of atmospheric physics.

A common behavior among GCMs is that when a layer of the atmosphere is found to have warmed, its expansion will be calculated and applied to the model. Since the lower limit is bounded (by the Earth), that raises the upper limit. There is no lid. The idea that PhD physicists would assume that pressure will rise on heating due to some sort of virtual lid is absurd. That is an error that an 12 year old MIGHT make and thus that is what we must assume is the intellectual capacity of your author.

 

[Crick]

Obviously you say "Funny" because you're incapable or unwilling to make any other response. WHY would someone making a model cause it to increase density with increasing temperature when the exact opposite happens in the real world and is a well known fact? Ask any ******* pilot what sort of air he prefers.

 

[jc456]

Obviously you say "Funny" because you're incapable or unwilling to make any other response. WHY would someone making a model cause it to increase density with increasing temperature when the exact opposite happens in the real world and is a well known fact? Ask any ******* pilot what sort of air he prefers.

dude, ever hear of volume, mass and pressure? It is why I can see the points in the man's writing, I just don't agree with the CO2 references as a greenhouse gas. his entire explanation concerning columns and zones makes great sense, it's why the clouds build in certain levels of the atmosphere and don't go any higher than they do and don't fill the sky. I believe in the clouds and their help to show how heat in the atmosphere really works. Not IR, heat. Again, you have never stated why the surface on Venus isn't hotter than its atmosphere. Venus destroys your CO2 magic back radiation nonsense.

 

[Crick]

dude, ever hear of volume, mass and pressure?

I have a degree in engineering. I've taken physics with calculus, mathematical physics and advanced physics for engineers. How about you?

It is why I can see the points in the man's writing, I just don't agree with the CO2 references as a greenhouse gas.

I think you agree with the man's points because you think they give you a reason to doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I have explained that the man has made several serious errors in his assumptions about GCMs. How about this: CO2 was classified as a greenhouse gas long before GCMs ever existed.

his entire explanation concerning columns and zones makes great sense

Unfortunately, his assumptions as to how GCMs are coded is completely wrong.

, it's why the clouds build in certain levels of the atmosphere and don't go any higher than they do and don't fill the sky.

Yes jc, phase diagrams have three axes: temperature, pressure and volume.

I believe in the clouds

But they don't believe in you.

and their help to show how heat in the atmosphere really works. Not IR, heat.

Do clouds or any other form of water vapor extend above the tropopause? No, they do not. Does CO2 extend above the tropopause? Yes it does. So what actually controls the emissions of LWIR to space? CO2.

Again, you have never stated why the surface on Venus isn't hotter than its atmosphere. Venus destroys your CO2 magic back radiation nonsense.

I have repeatedly now shown you direct measurements of back radiation from greenhouse gases. The greenhouse effect has been accepted science for over a hundred years. Hundreds of thousands of scientists have found it to be correct. Exceedingly few have ever bought into the "pot lid hypothesis". Why does that not affect your opinion? Because you decided in advance that you want to reject CO2 greenhouse warming for reasons that have nothing to do with science.

The surface of Venus is at the same temperature as its atmosphere and is the hottest planet in the solar system. It may be possible that the interior of Venus is COOLER than its atmosphere because the entire planet is not yet at equilibrium with the atmosphere. But if you believe that the atmosphere there is hotter than the planet itself, care to explain how all that energy was trapped? If you actually think that Venus refutes the greenhouse effect, you are a complete and total moron.