Since there has been a renewed interest in Probability Puzzles, like Monty Hall, Boy Born Tuesday and the Letter Paradox. Also there has been the issue raised before the US Congress about unfalsifiable hypotheses, I decided to combine the two:
Here is the Dallas theory of Extreme Weather Events related to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The polar regions are more susceptible to the warming due to CO2 increases due to dryer air and more space for warming (i.e. it is colder at the poles, so they can warm more). The tropical regions are less susceptible to the higher CO2 concentration since water vapor is by far the dominate GHG in this region, so proportionally, much lower warming will be evident. The impact will be a reduced temperature differential between the poles and equator, which will reduce the strength of atmospheric oscillations, there by reducing the frequency of extreme weather events in the higher latitudes.
Tropical cyclones will become more limited to lower latitudes as the polar/equatorial differential decreases. By the year 2125, blizzards will become a rare and exciting event.
Without abusing the laws of thermodynamic too much, falsify my hypothesis. The comment thing should be working now.
Efficient alternate energy portable fuels are required to end our dependence on fossil fuels. Hydrogen holds the most promise in that reguard. Exploring the paths open for meeting the goal of energy independence is the object of this blog. Hopefully you will find it interesting and informative.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(190)
-
▼
March
(36)
- The Maturing of Radiation Understanding
- The Uncertainty of the Impact of Radiation - Fukus...
- The Renewal of the Nuclear Debate
- Radiation Stuff - It is Maddening I Tell You!
- Odd Things About Natural and Background Radiation
- A Dollar a Watt?
- America - The Sudia Arabia of Trash
- Why Waste Heat?
- It is all in the Sales Pitch
- Energy Infrastructure
- Critical?
- Our Hydrogen Economy and Synfuels
- Future Energy Scenarios
- The Political Aspect of a Hydrogen Economy
- Time to get Back to the Fun Stuff!
- More Radiation Stuff From Japan
- More Main Stream Media Fun
- So How is the World Press Doing?
- More on Radiation Dosage
- A Renewed Interest in Pool-Type Reactors?
- Concerns for US Nuclear Power Post Fukushima
- What Nuclear Power Designs Should be in Our Future?
- The Fantastical World of The Hypothetical
- Japanese Nuclear Crisis - Radiation Impact
- The Japanese Nuclear Crisis
- How Great an Idea is Natural Gas Powered Vehicles?
- What Happened at the Japanese Nuclear Reactors?
- How to Overly Complicate a Simple Problem
- An Open Mind Doesn't Mean Letting Your Brains Leak...
- Matters of Scale
- Why are Engineers Often Skeptics of Climate Change?
- Climate Science Puzzle
- Predicting Future Climate - the Decade Version
- Ethics in Climate Science
- Lables - What's in a Name?
- The War of the Posers?
-
▼
March
(36)
3 comments:
Dallas,
This does not include shifting ocean heat or the hypothesis or how an Ice Age is formed.
Massive evaporation is the signature of an Ice Age, so where is that precipitation come from? The sun has no influence on evaporation without the help of atmospheric pressure and a whole host of other factors.
Thunderstorms and hurricanes generate local pressure differences. The heat engine works between the warm surface and cold troposphere. This hypothesis considers one variable, latitudinal temperature gradient and its impact on climate.
Glacial/interglacial events are assumed to be orbitally driven cycles, which is pretty well accepted. While little ice ages may be driven by solar variation, TSI change alone is not likely to be the driver. So unless you can prove that temperature difference between the poles and equator will not reduce with GHG increases, you haven't falsified the hypothesis.
Post a Comment