It is also predicted by a corrected and extended mathematical Theory of the atmosphere.

If your theory is the complete, mathematical treatment of our atmosphere, as developed by Dr. Ferenc Mikolczi. His publication describing that mathematical treatment, is the most referenced scientific paper of the year, despite being peer reviewed and published in a foreign journal.

In case you missed it, he shows that not using math simplification models that are no longer necessary, the Earth agrees with many of his extended Theory’s predictions.

Including this one of disappearing or “IRISed” Cirrus clouds. Water vapor rises or falls to regulate GHG effects; and constrains them to a “saturated state” of GHG warming. In effect it is pegged by the oceans of H20, now in actual contact with the atmosphere and not separated by a discontinuity, as the old model postulated for simplification reasons.

For conservation of energy reasons, radiation balance, continuity forcing temperature convergence between the Earths’ surface and the air immediately above it, the virtually infinite pool of H20 in the oceans, the global warming model changes, when it is complete.

It generates outputs that differ from the partial, simplified mathematical model the world has been using since Milne offered it in 1928.

Energy changes from whatever reason: hotter/cooler sun, more or less volcanoes, orbiting closer/farther to the sun, increased/decreased cosmic rays, more or less cloudiness,land use albedo changes, more or less of CO2, or any other GHG, for whatever reason, the GHG warming of the collective atmospheric GHGs are pegged by the Oceans and held almost constant, at a saturated state, on the Earth.

If CO2 goes up, H20 comes down. If CH4 goes down, H20 goes up, to compensate, et cetera. Rising CO2 can’t force a runaway warming.

Funny the real world seems to agree with his theory. But then his model of the Earth and atmosphere more resembles what the real world looks like.

He, like Einstein before him, did not meekly accept the atmospheric model from long ago. He rejected some mathematical simplifications that had to be made in the 1920s when the present mathematical model of the atmosphere was worked out.

Back then mathematical simplifications had to be made to solve the partial differential equations. Back when math tools were more primitive; and numeric methods like the computer enables, weren’t even conceived. And more important, confirming or disproving observations were nowhere as complete. Miskolczi turned to actual observations to deduce some effects and then determined the appropriate mathematical boundary conditions.

In 1928, Milne who was a astro-physicist and not a great mathematician, made inappropriate mathematical simplifications. Unbelievably, we have unquestioningly used them ever since.

The old model that has an Infinite atmosphere than extends forever. Sound realistic? An atmosphere that doesn’t actually touch the Earths’ surface. Mathematically the old model has a vacuum and discontinuity between the Earth’s surface, for computational convenience. Sound reasonable? The old model is not gravitationally bound. So a chunk of hot air with water vapor, when heated, doesn’t evaporate and rise. There is no way to get up there to form clouds and then fall back to the Earth as rain.
Clouds never form? Rain never falls? Hot air balloons are only imaginary? Sound realistic?

Contrast that with the mathematical model that Mikolczi creates and solves. It has a finite, not infinite atmosphere of about 100km in extent. Sound more realistic, already? It has a gravitationally bound atmosphere, denser at the surface that when heated the air rises, moves energy via convection, then can condense into clouds, and fall to Earth. Rain can actually fall in his corrected model. Does that sound somewhat comparable to our Atmosphere?

The Atmosphere in his corrected version, actually touches the Earth’s surface and for continuity reasons the temperature of Earth and air converge at the surface boundary. The Oceans covering 70% of the surface, effect being much more massive, can control the atmosphere, that it now touches. Are you surprised? Sound more realistic?

The old model says that if you shine a flashlight into a foggy night, you can see farther than shining that flashlight into a clear night. Sound realistic?

Isn’t that model more realistic overall, than the simplified mathematical model we have used for almost 100 years?
Is it any wonder that the old simplified model doesn’t match certain observations of the real world, very well?

- Incorrect. In any system. Locality is the key word there – pay attention to it, it’s relevant.

“Where did you ever see it “proven”? I’d like to see the paper you refer to that proves for once and for all that negative feedbacks rule macro and micro open systems. Hint, they don’t.

What a simple example? Can you spell “Atom Bomb”?”

- Every gravity well, every energy-extruding sun, every black hole, is evidence for this concept. And yes, the atom bomb is too – it demonstrates exactly what happens when a positive feedback is introduced; the system is shoved violently into the first negative feedback powerful enough to catch it. In the case of Earth, we’re already in an immensely deep feedback well, which is why a dozen nuclear bombs would only rock planetary climate before it settled again.

And as for a proof – if you’re actually interested in one, check out Ronald Fisher’s work. Fisher’s Inequality, one of the foundational theorems of statistics, is commonly used in Entropy work, and insofar as it has been proven, proves the point of feedback convergence fairly conclusively. It’s not coincidence that entropic and evolutionary statistics are to a great extent dependent upon the same proof – they’re all specific cases of the problem of proving convergence towards the most stable local point in a system containing variable feedback and input. I don’t believe a formal proof as yet exists outside of Bayesian reasoning – that is, it can be proven to be true for some high percentage of cases in any given system, but it is possible (just extremely unlikely) for a system to exist in a state of defiance.

“Actually, it’s the only possible situation, as a result of the same process which gives rise to the “law” of entropy”

In a closed system, you’d be right. But the Earth is not a closed system, which gives rise to phenomenons otherwise impossible to happen, like life. So there goes your rationale to the bucket.

“This is proven a trillion times a trillion times over in the universe”

Where did you ever see it “proven”? I’d like to see the paper you refer to that proves for once and for all that negative feedbacks rule macro and micro open systems. Hint, they don’t.

What a simple example? Can you spell “Atom Bomb”?

sunsettommy, scientist et al, please read my post. Your discussing is turning to flame bait.

Apparently my hotdog line was too hard for the PHD troll to decode.

From the troll:

“Now that really is a logical classic. Because you’ve boiled hot dogs, the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks? Brilliant!! The chewbacca defence is nothing compared to this.

To avoid making a yet greater fool of yourself, you need to learn some basic thermodynamics from somewhere else. This is not the place to learn about what setting you need to put your cooker on to get some water to boil.”

Have you ever considered the possibility that you can boil hotdogs at a LOWER stove temperature setting with a tightfitting lid on the pot?

Than to boil hotdogs without such a lid?

I doubt you know how to cook hotdogs at all.

it is no surprise that you are wildly, embarrassingly, preposterously wrong.
Posted by: Scientist

Such irony… Or is it tragic comedy?

[morganovich with some unbelievably insightful and clutch posting above, well done!]

- Dogmatic? Actually, it’s the only possible situation, as a result of the same process which gives rise to the “law” of entropy (which fails to function at an atomic – in the original sense of the word, which is to say, the quantum – level) – energy systems will always settle in the midst of the strongest negative feedbacks which exist within their norm of deviation. In the absence of any strong negative feedbacks, the energy system will deviate until it encounters one.

This is proven a trillion times a trillion times over in the universe – every planet, every star, every solar system, every universe, is evidence of this principle in action. It’s true in the short run precisely because it is true in the long run; to say otherwise as evidence for AGW is to say otherwise as evidence for N-AGW. (That is, if you say it doesn’t apply in the short run, you’ve effectively made the claim that natural variance is sufficient explanation for everything that has been seen.)

And what constitutes “dangerous levels” of heat for humans, anyways? That’s hardly a well-defined word.

i know what the soden paper is about, but i doubt you do. it’s a stack of questionable claims about feedbacks in models that are much too complex to be reduced to a single variable. they assume that they have all the other inputs correct (like aerosol impact) and then use circular logic to claim they have demonstrated something about water vapor. if you allow me that much leeway to set assumptions, i could “prove” damn near anything.

inductive logic based on unproven assumptions is not science.

further, his claims have been repeatedly disproven by the much more accurate measurements from the NASA AQUA satellite which is looking at a much larger portion of the water vapor system than that addressed by soden.

And how obvious that you have no idea what the Soden paper is about. What do you think ‘Pinatubo’ is, the name for a bit of code or something?