dvunkannon
Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008
|
If anyone was missing DaveScot from UD, he's currently pretty active in the discussion over at Judith Curry's blog.
The following exchange is from
http://judithcurry.com/2013....missing
| Quote | David Springer | June 17, 2013 at 9:52 am | Reply
Whats missing is modeling the earth as a water world instead of a dry rock. If the atmosphere was 99.97% nitrogen and 0.03% CO2 and the surface was dry rock like the moon then doubling CO2 would cause a mean temperature rise across the entire sphere of 1.1C. Water changes everything. Modelers invented, out of whole cloth it appears, so-called water vapor amplification which transforms 1.1C of well modeled sensitivity into 3C of poorly modeled sensitivity. It appears now that is quite wrong and water vapor amplification is non-existent. My take on what happens is that the cloud deck rises by about 100 meters for every CO2 doubling but cloud temperature remains unchanged and instead the lapse rate between cloud and ground changes. This is called lapse-rate feedback. Its a negative feedback and its magnitude is not well known. If the same temperature cloud is at a higher level in the atmosphere then by definition there is less greenhouse gas between the cloud top and space and more greenhouse gas between the cloud bottom and the ground. This gives the heat in the cloud a less restrictive radiative path to space and a more restrictive path back to the ground. A mere 100 meter change in cloud height equates to a 1.0C lapse-rate feedback and thus nullifies the effect of doubling CO2. Critically, where there is little or no water on the surface to evaporate and form clouds there is nothing to nullify the warming effect. So over land, especially where the land is frozen, we should see a larger warming effect. In fact this is what we do observe.
Rob Starkey | June 17, 2013 at 10:25 am |
Dave
Your theory may be correct, but I think yous have to admit that there is large leap from a general theory and developing a model that reliably performs. Many of us have theories, but they are worth little. Mine involves the interaction with the deep oceans, but until someone can demonstrate a GCM that reliably performs..well it is all just meaningless talk
David Springer | June 17, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
Rob the ocean is over 70% of the surface and over 90% of the heat capacity. It isnt subject to variation from urban heat islands, land use change, albedo change (except a small % due to seasonal sea ice extent change). The entire surface is even all at almost exactly the same elevation.
Ya figures out what the ocean does in response to C02 change and everything else is details.
As of now the best empirical data (which isnt very accurate at such tiny wattages) says the ocean basin is accumulating heat at the rate of 0.5W/m2. This is enough to raise the basin temperature 0.2C per century. Per CENTURY. That isnt cause for alarm. |
But there is a better exchange that proves Dave is still our Dave earlier in the thread:
| Quote | David Springer | June 17, 2013 at 8:55 am | Reply
David Young | June 16, 2013 at 10:43 pm | Reply
Basically, adding more physics doesnt increase accuracy if in fact it becomes more accurate to constrain all the additional parameters with data.
Constraining parameters with data. Gee, that almost sounds like something out of the scientific method. You know, like hypothesis (what you think the parameters should be), prediction (the result of the parameterization), and test (does the hypothesis explain the measured result of experiments). Lather rinse and repeat unitl the hypothesis predicts the experimental results. Then you have a candidate for a theory if the final step, replication by others, is successful.
Constraining the existing parameters with data should be the first step. And not just any data. The data itself is often insuffucient in scope and quality such that its pencil whipped into better fitness for purpose. Better in this case too often means a better fit to desired outcomes (cough cough hockey stick cough cough).
Brian H | June 17, 2013 at 10:13 am |
Note the correction to the sentence you critique. Start over, rewrite.
Steven Mosher | June 17, 2013 at 11:05 am |
Brian, be quiet. Springer is now a fluid dynamics expert. And just yesterday he invention the Li on battery for Dell
Venter | June 17, 2013 at 11:31 am |
Yeah and Mosh is an engineer with a major in English and Philosophy, eminently qualified and knowledgeable to comment about fluid dynamics.
What a jerk!
Pissant Progressive | June 17, 2013 at 11:42 am |
heh. 2 smart guys that are almost as smart as they think they are.
David Springer | June 17, 2013 at 5:10 pm |
I dont have a problem with the corrected sentence.
David Springer | June 17, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
@Venter
English and philosophy, huh. That explains why he cant engineer his way out of a paper bag. But it doesnt explain why he sucks at English and philosophy. |
--------------
Im referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
Im not an evolutionist, Im a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima
|
