Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 73 Votes - 2.85 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Willis Eschenbauch comment
08-18-2011, 05:34 AM
Post: #1
Willis Eschenbauch comment
From HERE

Quote:Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Sigh …

In a piece called It’s Not About The Feedback, I have discussed how the current climate paradigm is as mechanistic and predictable as balls on a pool table. Unfortunately, Lindzen and Choi take that mechanistic paradigm as their starting point as well, with their Equation 1:

∆T = sensitivity * ∆Q Equation 1

Same old same old, the very equation I had discussed in my cited post. They go on to equation 2, to discuss the effect of feedback on that equation, but for the reasons in my citation, I’ve already parted company with them at equation 1. The climate is not linear and mechanistically predictable, that doesn’t accord with reality.

I think that equation 1 is the result of highly suspect mathematics, and has no physical meaning.

I think, and have given (what I see as) good reasons for thinking, that sensitivity is a function of temperature, particularly in the tropics. When it is cool, sensitivity is high, and vice versa. This does not progress linearly, but shifts abruptly at the crossings of a series of thresholds.

So I fear that much of Lindzen and Choi’s work, while fascinating, is based on an incorrect assumption. This is the assumption of equation 1 as the basic state. I don’t accept that assumption. I say that the thermal stability of the planet, and particularly the tropics, is the result of the dependence of sensitivity on temperature.

Lindzen and Choi are repeating the same mistake as the AGW folks, only from the other side of the aisle. They’re trying to analyze a system of heat-sensing self-generating surface cooling machines that spring up as needed to put the cool-water fire-hose on the local hot spots, as if it were analyzing a system of forces acting on a lever.

Which is why I’m a heretic. I say the underlying paradigm, the root description, the claimed linearity and the magic formula Temperature Equals Sensitivity Times Forcing are an incorrect description of the reality of the climate system.

The reality is that the climate system has preferred states and preferred temperatures as a result of a host of homeostatic mechanisms. Chief among them are thunderstorms, the active part of the Great Hadley Solar Powered Air Conditioning, Water Cooling, Ice Making, and Global Circulation Machine.

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and see the Hadley wonders in action. You think that heat only flows from hot areas to cold areas? The Great Hadley Ice Making Machines flip that on its head. They make cold flow instead of heat. And to complete the trick, they make the cold flow from cold areas to hot areas. To do it, they take water vapor from the surface. They condense and freeze out the water in the frigid upper atmosphere. Then they deliver the frozen water back from the icy altitudes to the very surface from which it left … how’s that for a neat trick? They make cold flow from cold to hot … including what might be laughingly termed “Latent Cold”, since it will cool the surface even further to have to melt the ice.

As a result of that and a host of tricks involving cloud albedo and local wind generation and the like, thunderstorms are able to regulate the surface temperature, springing up as necessary, in ever increasing numbers, to cool out any local hot spots or areas.

Nor do thunderstorms resemble feedback. They do not just slow down a temperature increase, like a negative feedback.

Instead, their dual-fuel nature allows them to actually cool the surface down to a temperature below that at which they started. When they kick into existence, the surface gets not just a slowed warming, but a good cooling.

Now, this situation can be analyzed and it can be modeled … but only by admitting that it is a self-regulating, self-organized, threshold-based system, which is regulated inter alia by active temperature-generated independent refrigeration cycle units springing up as needed and chilling out surface hot spots with cold water and cold air. It’s not easy to model, but it can be done.

You can’t model it or analyze it, however, by claiming that it’s like balls on a level pool table. Temperature doesn’t equal some magic number times the forcing, maybe you can believe that if it helps you to sleep, but the real climate is infinitely more complex and ingenious.

So no … equation one, that idea that temperature is some unspecified number times the forcing?

Not so much. I’m a heretic.

w.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-19-2011, 02:43 AM
Post: #2
RE: Willis Eschenbauch comment
Quote:Willis Eschenbach says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, and see the Hadley wonders in action.
You think that heat only flows from hot areas to cold areas? The Great Hadley Ice Making Machines flip that on its head.
They make cold flow instead of heat. And to complete the trick, they make the cold flow from cold areas to hot areas.
To do it, they take water vapor from the surface. They condense and freeze out the water in the frigid upper atmosphere.
Then they deliver the frozen water back from the icy altitudes to the very surface from which it left … how’s that for a neat trick?
They make cold flow from cold to hot … including what might be laughingly termed “Latent Cold”,
since it will cool the surface even further to have to melt the ice.

w.

I just love reading that.........It is what I have been saying for ages now.
It was said by so many, and accepted widely 30 plus years ago, but not by many, if any, inbetween
- I wonder why.....NOT.

Cold does flow from cold to hot, and in large amounts.
Now, who was it that flipped the sign and created the mythical positive "back radiation"???
AND why did they do it?

Hint - See my signature.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-19-2011, 05:44 AM
Post: #3
RE: Willis Eschenbauch comment
Derek,
cold cannot "flow", there is no such thing as "cold" really, other than in our human senses. There are only different intensities of heat. Heat always flows from hot to cooler (less hot), this is Thermodynamics and this rule alone destroys the greenhouse effect.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-19-2011, 08:31 AM
Post: #4
RE: Willis Eschenbauch comment
(08-19-2011 05:44 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  cold cannot "flow",

Try telling that to an ocean current, or Willis Eschenbach's above, observed, real world, example.

I prefer relatively to
compared to absolute zero, because it is convenient to the "theory"..

" There are only different intensities of heat " - is such a limited, and limiting view.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-19-2011, 12:11 PM
Post: #5
RE: Willis Eschenbauch comment
(08-19-2011 05:44 AM)Climate Realist Wrote:  Derek,
cold cannot "flow", there is no such thing as "cold" really, other than in our human senses. There are only different intensities of heat. Heat always flows from hot to cooler (less hot), this is Thermodynamics and this rule alone destroys the greenhouse effect.

Cooler air masses can indeed flow to warmer area.We get that obviously from a Thunder cloud.We get it from a cold front.Warmer air rises and cooler air comes in to replace it.That is why we have winds in the first place.

But that is because there is an outside energy source driving it.Otherwise it would be one way and then stops,when it reaches equilibrium.

It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
08-19-2011, 12:40 PM
Post: #6
RE: Willis Eschenbauch comment
It is certainly one of the reasons we get wind, condensation of water vapour is another for example.

And yes, there are outside energy sources, the sun, gravity, and other (too many to mention) sensible or latent heat sources.
But, is equilibrium ever reached, anywhere, for any length of time, in the real world, probably not.
Find all posts by this user Give Reputation to this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Willis Eschenbauch's comment Sunsettommy 0 731 01-13-2013 02:20 PM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)