Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 Next
Comments 62851 to 62900:
-
shoyemore at 20:51 PM on 28 February 2012New research from last week 8/2012
Ari, Once again thank you for your assiduous work in collating these papers and publishing them regularly. At least two look to be to be of more than "ordinary" importance Cohen et al on the "recent lapse in global warming". Olsen et al on a new climate sensitivity estimate. -
Rob Painting at 20:17 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Matthew L - "My problem with the missing heat being at the bottom of the ocean is that heat will expand the sea wherever it is hidden. Surely the sea would be expanding more quickly rather than less if both the temperature of the deep oceans was rising and the glaciers melting? I have seen the explanation of recent flooding due to La-Nina but am sceptical that this could account for such a large and sustained decline in the rate of sea level rise." It's doubtful that thermal expansion during the "noughties" was higher than the 1990's. Certainly James Hansen's work shows otherwise. Glacier melt seems to have reached a point where it has accelerated through the noughties, even as ocean warming was progressing at a slower rate than the 1990's, which suggests it has passed a 'tipping point' of sorts. A combination of slower ocean warming in the noughties, combined with strong La Ninas at the end of the decade (more rainfall over land - and lower sea levels) have contributed to the sea level trend over the last 5 years. But it's unlikely to last. The solar cycle will see more ocean warming for the next 3-5 years, and shift back to El Nino will see more short-term sea level rise. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:29 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn. You seem to be assuming that increased rainfall over various regions will be returned to the oceans relatively quickly. If extra rainfall drains quickly across surface soils into fivulets, streams rivers etc yes. But you seem to be discounting two other factors. Increased water uptake by dry soils and sub-soils that doesn't drain away at all. And water uptake by the land but doesn't flow relatively quickly to the sea but starts to percolate down and recharge aquifers. Your presumption of relatively quick transfer of increased precipitation back to the oceans sounds rather simplistic. -
Jose_X at 16:13 PM on 28 February 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
gallopingcamel #40, we should have a conversation on that WUWT article over there not here; but what I saw when I glanced at it just now were a few mathematical claims (which I have not yet verified but which conclusions seems inaccurate) made on what is recognized to be a simplified radiation model (that everyone knows doesn't include convection or high precision radiation absorption and so is used as a toy for introductory purposes) purporting to dispel the foundation of climate science. This makes no sense obviously (read between parenthesis above). Then they suggest a theory that appears to be curve fitting with little or no derivation from first principles. To recap: they attack the wrong model, probably making mathematical mistakes somewhere, and then put up a "theory" that is but a formula they hatched out by looking at data points. What kind of predictive capabilities can we expect from a formula based on curve fitting today's earth data points and no understanding of the dynamics of our changing planet? [That was a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it: probably little better than what trend analysis predictions offers us on distant future stock market behavior. Next to nada.] I think this comment is off topic, but I couldn't help myself. -
Jose_X at 15:42 PM on 28 February 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
Some important differences I have noticed between what I remember (or looked up) from feedback analysis and what I see in Roe2009: When system subblocks are analyzed, a transfer function is considered. Transfer functions may be the result of Fourier Transforms. These transfer functions will have dependencies on frequency. This frequency domain approach allows time domain convolusions (which are necessary calculations to understand system response to inputs) to be replaced with simple multiplication of the system functions. Further, the subblocks tend to be attached to each other through some sort of nonlinear mechanism that allows two signals from two or more subblocks to unite or to multiply with negligible coupling (eg, opamps for analog modules; standard digital circuits mechanisms; nonlinear nonmodeled mechanisms (possibly using electronics as control) between physical nonelectronic components)). This isolation is implicit in this modeling leveraging transfer functions. OK, so Roe2009 doesn't really apply these items just mentioned. The climate doesn't readily appear to have these nonlinear buffer zones that would allow subblock transfer functions to multiply as depicted on page 5, for example. I'm only on page 6, but I have seen no invocation of Fourier or other transforms to derive such transfer functions. Pictorially, there is no traditional "+" or "-" uniting the feedback path to the main one or to any other path, bringing doubt to this idea of isolation between subblocks. The 2xCO2 forcing appears to be a monotonically increasing function of some sort or at least an almost acyclical or perhaps very low frequency signal (relative to important system time constants.. I'm guessing). And of course, the principal negative feedback (S-B radiation/cooling) is not modeled as a feedback. In short, I don't question (or for that matter ascertain) the accuracy of the sensitivity analysis in Roe2009 from what I have seen so far (mostly through page 6 of 25), but it doesn't resemble at all the "feedback analysis" that I am familiar with from engineering, even though the language used in Roe2009 and many of the features of the analysis appear to mimic traditional feedback analysis. [At least based on my modest/low level of experience.] Interesting. I have much to think about and read. Any insight into this would be appreciated. -
gallopingcamel at 15:30 PM on 28 February 2012Radiative Balance, Feedback, and Runaway Warming
Chris @35. Thanks for recommending Grant & Petty but you are a little late. In the same spirit may I recommend you read Rodrigo Caballero (University College, Dublin): http://maths.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMet/PhysMetLectNotes.pdf scaddenp @35, The N&K calculations I was referring to in #31 are based on physical laws from which the DALR can be derived. One of the quibbles I have with N&K is that their calculations do not make corrections for water vapor (moist adiabat). Even so, their analysis fits the facts very well for Earth, Venus and Titan: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/ In a nutshell, the main variables that determine planetary surface temperatures are TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), and surface pressure). There are plenty of smaller influences such as albedo, cloud cover, ocean currents etc. There are even some respected scientists who claim that CO2 affects the climate. For example, Richard Lindzen: http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/#more-7386 -
Camburn at 14:43 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
KR: Yes, portions of Greenland do, but according to Grace data, overall Ice mass on Greenland is continuing to delcine, so that contribution must be ignored, and rather the data demonstrates that even with the Northern Greenland gain, the over loss of ice mass is a steady contribution to SLR. The Amazon basin of Brazil was actually in a moisture deficit, as was Argentina and that area. As far as Columbia and Venezala, (the blue area of South America), that area is also well drained. I think the Grace data is now pretty good. There was a paper published not long ago of which I didn't save, and can't find the link, that showed some problems with the algorythems and one would hope those have been adjusted. Tom@74: Rainfall will affect lake levels, but for only a very short time period in most circumstances. Lake Eyre is an exception, and should not be extrapolated to other large water shed basins. The Upper Mississippi water shed, North Central Great Plains area, drains fast and hard. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Camburn - Agreed; without basic physics (or at least a willingness to learn), no progress will be made. -
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - The GRACE data (which I suspect still is in the ground-truth calibration phase) certainly shows North America as not a major influence. But Australia and Brazil have huge mass accumulations, as do portions of Greenland and northern Russian regions. Always important to look beyond the local neighborhood... -
Johnny Vector at 14:14 PM on 28 February 2012Mythbusting with fewer explosions
owl, yes that applies to the pollution mongers. But most people don't have a vested interest in damaging the world. Among them, there are some who are unreachable, but there's a large muddy middle that honestly thinks climate is unpredictable or the science is still in dispute. They've heard the myths, and think they are truth. Assuming you can get the message to them, it does matter whether you can make it stick. -
Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
I notice that Camburn stands firmly behind his opinion that rainfall will not effect lake levels. No more need be said. -
Camburn at 14:06 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
KR@71: Yep.....short term varience, as there has not been enough time to change the long term trend. As far as water accumulating on land tho...in North America is wouldn't persist for years. From Tom's post, Lake Eyre would seem to be an exception to normal water shed activity as it is below sea level. That would make a difficult drainage basis, and I wish the best for him and folks that live near there. -
Camburn at 14:00 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom@70: Your assumption was surface water. You used it all. I looked at what surface water was composed of....swamps...etc. I took the fluid water.....the water that would be considered non-stationary. I am fine with you not discussing this subject with me. -
scaddenp at 13:57 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
If you are going to use soil temperatures to talk about temperature on the moon cf temperature on the earth, then make sure you talk about soil temperatures on earth. However, comparison is much more difficult since earth soils are mostly wet with the due effects on thermal properties. Deviner saw night range from 35-90K. Does that change the argument. -
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - Then what we are looking at with the short term data is simply a more accurate view of short term variance, not a long term trend. The GRACE data is very interesting, and certainly shows mass accumulations in numerous areas over the last few years. It will be interesting to see how that data evolves over time. But it certainly indicates water accumulations on land (due most likely to La Nina conditions) persisting for >year durations. -
Camburn at 13:54 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
KR@46: What YOGI is proposing will never be proven as he ignores basic physics. -
Tom Curtis at 13:53 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn @66, I specified 2% of surface water. I did the calculations, and did them correctly. For you to switch that to 2% of river water in your calculation is simply bait and switch. To do so without specifying that you had changed the quantity measured, as you did in post 61 is blatant trolling. Given that there is no reason to think that excess rainfall would all be stored in rivers, and not in lakes and swamps (for example), there is no plausible basis for your change in the measured quantity. Frankly, I think the only reason you changed from surface water to river water only (without mentioning that you did so) was to minimize the value thus calculated. I need only to point out that while it may be drying in parts of the US, in Qld is is flooding again for the third record setting flood in 24 months (although not as extensive as the previous two). Further, I need to point out that the US is a small part of the world as well. I used Qld only to illustrate the many types of processes that can, and do delay the return of rainfall to the ocean. Finally, you have clearly established to my mind that you are just trolling on this thread. Therefore I have no more interest in discussing this subject with you. -
Camburn at 13:52 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
KR@67: I agree with you 100%. What I do have confidence in, is that the present state of the measureing instruments is the best we have ever had. The time frame of these instruments started in approx 2003-2004. That is the trend we are dealing with, to detect with a much higher degree of accuracy than could have been done prior to this time. The long term trend established with the data that was available at the time has not changed in any statisically significant way. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI - You cannot divide the temperature by 8 to get an answer, as the SB equation is: Power = SB Constant * Emissivity * Area * Temp(K)^4 SB constant is 5.670373*10^-8 You need to consider the average incoming insolation, and work through the equation to get the temperature. Also - "But if I argue that daytime albedo is cancelled out by night time insulation of clouds etc, and disregard the atmospheric emissivity too..." - Then you are ignoring the details. You're more than welcome to make up your own math, your own physics - but everyone else is therefore more than justified to ignore it. -
Camburn at 13:48 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom: We are talking about the short term trend change in SLR. WE are not discussing the long term trend as scaddenp pointed out at 58. I am not ignoring the pictures...... I am very familiar with the Upper Mississippi water shed and the Red River Basin water shed of North America. The water that fell in 2010 is long gone. And while we are talking colors, it is very possible that the drought conditions in the Mid West and South Central canceled out the precipitation in the Upper MIssissippi water shed. Also, when looking at blue.....remember that the blue on Greenland is an increase.....it snowed a lot there and will stay on the ice cap for awhile. Overall, tho, Greenland has lost mass so that blue on Greenland would not be an increase in mass, but an increase in SLR. The question that is being discussed is why SLR has slowed in the past 10 years. And it has, skeptic or not, that is what the data is showing. Whether this slowing of the SLR trend persists is a seperate question all to itself. -
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - 5 years is a very short time period considering year-to-year variance, variance which has been seen over the entire ~150 year close observation period for sea level rise. Unless you can show some statistical significance for it, I would have to consider that 5 year time period far too short for trend analysis. And a 15 or even 10 year period (let alone longer ones) still shows considerable SLR. -
YOGI at 13:39 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
KR at 11:18 AM on 28 February, 2012 That is interesting as 171.9C * 0.7 (albedo) / 8 = 15.04C. But if I argue that daytime albedo is cancelled out by night time insulation of clouds etc, and disregard the atmospheric emissivity too, then 120.5C / 8 = 15.0625C. Or if I include Earth`s surface emissivity: 15.06C * 0.98 = 14.76125C. -
Camburn at 13:37 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom: Australia is a wonderful country, but the small amount of water stored in Lake Eyre doesn't amount to much on a global scale. The flooding on the Mississippi water shed in 2011 has all reached the oceans as the lake levels of the dams are actually lower now than early spring of last year. Also, the water in the Red River Basin has been gone for months. That aside, the 0.3% of global water in the surface pool does not all go to the oceans. It would have to do so to achieve the 6mm dip and recovery that you showed. Where I got the 0.05mm from was as follows: 2.55 rate of sea level rise. Rivers have approx 2% of the 0.3%. Assuming that all the rivers ran dry, take the 2.55mm x 2% (which would still be too large, but I was trying to show how small the contribution is)....you get 0.051mm. We have a finite water budget on earth. The link I provided shows the distrubtion of that water presently. -
Tom Curtis at 13:26 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn @63:"A number of climate not-so-skeptics have been exploiting global sea level data in their latest attempt to hide the incline. Skeptical Science readers will be very familiar with the tactics the "skeptics" use to make this argument: Cherrypick a very small amount of data during which the short-term noise has dampened the long-term incline Ignore the long-term trend Refuse to examine the reasons behind the short-term change"
Dana Nuccitelli And here are the colours Camburn persists in turning a blind eye to:
-
owl905 at 13:23 PM on 28 February 2012Mythbusting with fewer explosions
Just as Neville Chamberlain could not grasp the reality of warmongers on the loose, it should not be assumed that the pro-pollutionists are honest skeptics. In the sales game, one of the first priorities is to "qualify the prospect". Buyer? Tire-kicker? Attention-seeker? Gossip-gatherer? There's little value in debunking a mythtake if the opposite side has no interest in the truth. -
Camburn at 13:22 PM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Upper Midwest...ND. I visit SkS, Pielke Sr., WUWT, Judith Curry, Nevin Arctic Page. -
Tom Curtis at 13:22 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn @61: If the Antarctic Ice Sheets melted, they would raise sea level by nearly 60 meters (60,000 millimeters). If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, it would raise sea level by 6.5 meters (6,500 millimeters). (I choose not to use the 80 meter estimate from the later source in order to be conservative.) From your source, surface water represents 0.3% of all freshwater, while Icecaps and Glaciers represent 68.7%. That means there is only 0.44% as much water in surface water as there are in Icecaps and Glaciers.
Rounding down, we therefore have that the contribution of 2% of surface water to sea level would be 0.02 x 0.004 x 66000 millimeters or 5.28 mm. I have no idea where you got your 0.051 mm figure from.
For comparison, here is the Jason 2 data for sea level rise:
(AVISO
You will notice the approximately 6 mm dip and recovery that dominates that later part of the graph. Clearly a 2% increase in surface water would be enough to explain all, or nearly all of that dip.
Not only are you wrong about the magnitude of the effect, you are wrong about the rapid recovery. Much of the water from the January 2011 Queensland floods, for example, still remain happily below sea level at Lake Eyre. It took several months to get there because of ht low gradient, and because of that low gradient, most of the rest of that water that was not captured in Qld's many dams has only recently reached the sea at the mouth of the Murray river. Much of the water will also have replenished surface aquifers, soil moisture content or been stored in newly refreshed plant life.
The notion that rainfall immediately runs of to the sea is simply bizarre, and as a farmer you should know that.
However, as noted, and although it took about two years, the sea level has recovered, and most of that water has now returned to the sea.
There remains therefore only your strange contention that so large a dip in sea level (in the short term) could have no effect on short term trends. The contention once considered is clearly seen to be false.
-
Camburn at 13:16 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
KR: The average SLR between 2005 and 2010 is 1.3mm/year. Page 8 of the following link. From the following paper: An excellent analysis of where we are concerning current SLR I have not read a good reconstruction of historic sea level on a global level. The contents of the above link show the difficulty in using a few sites to try and reconstruct sea level rise rates etc. The above also discusses the difficulty using satillites, and hopefully, most of these issues have been resolved with the improvements of combining data sources to achieve a clearer picture. We know that the ice mass loss of Greenland, and potentially Antarctica, has not slowed down. With the above in mind, it shows that something has slowed down the rate of rise of SL. ARGO data shows us that, at least in the upper boundary of the ocean, OHC has not increased. That assumption is also demonstrated in the observed balance of radiation presented in a paper presented on this site. -
lloyd at 12:56 PM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
Lloyd Smith From Mid-America USA: In addition to "SkepticalScience", I follow RealClimate, Nasa GISS and Earth Observatory Notes from the field, NSIDC and Neven's Arctic blog. I also keep up with freshwater issues on Pacific Institutes website and publications. -
YOGI at 12:26 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 28 February, 2012 "Okay, 35-44K for minimum temperature because the moon is heated and does have thermal mass. Doesn't exactly change the argument. Average temp would be 217K. Your assumption is still wrong." From the NASA data, it looks like you are wrong at every step.Response:[DB] "From the NASA data, it looks like you are wrong at every step."
This is insufficient in a science-based forum and amounts to you being argumentative for form's sake. If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to do the maths (show your work) or to provide supportive links with an appropriate measure of explanatory context as to what you understand the link to show and why it is pertinent to the discussion.
-
Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn - "...about the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the OHC has declined at this time." Actually, since the rate of change of SLR is still positive, still higher than the ~1.3mm/yr pre-industrial level, the strongest statement that could be made is that OHC, while rising, is not rising as fast as it has in the recent past. I will note that decadal variances in sea level rise are quite obvious in the last 150 years while showing accelerating sea level rise:
-
YOGI at 12:12 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Tom Curtis "In crater floors in polar regions that drops to about 40 K because of heat transfer by conduction." Its because they never get any sunlight. -
YOGI at 12:08 PM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Tom Curtis "Your supposition that the average subsurface temperature was 40 degrees greater than the average surface temperature is not supported by your linked site, and is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics." Subsurface Temperatures Heat flow measurements made during the Apollo 15 and 17 missions (Langseth et al. 1973) revealed that the top 1-2 cm of lunar regolith has extremely low thermal conductivity. The mean temperature measured 35cm below the surface of the Apollo sites was 40-45K warmer than the surface. At a depth of 80cm the day/night temperature variation experienced at the surface was imperceptible. This implies that habitations in the lunar subsurface exist that are not subject to the harsh temperature extremes prevalent on the surface. http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml You should have read on further.... -
Camburn at 12:04 PM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Tom: That 2% would have long been back in the oceans. And 2% amounts to .051mm, a very small amount of short duration. Even considered as noise, such a small change would be vitrually undetectable. On a short term noisy timeline, the rate of change of SLR has slowed. One can't derive any long term conclusions as to why, or if this trend change will continue. Using the information available, about the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that the OHC has declined at this time. The only other conclusion would be that the ocean bottom has developed a new hole somewhere that we do not as of yet have knowledge of happening. -
Tom Curtis at 11:40 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI @35, your source gives the equatorial mean temperature at 207 K. It specifies the relationship of surface to subsurface temperatures taken at two different sites at times which where far from the zenith hour for the Sun (as shown by the shadows). As such the sub surface temperatures would represent something close to the average for their respective latitudes, but surface temperatures may have been well below that average. Your supposition that the average subsurface temperature was 40 degrees greater than the average surface temperature is not supported by your linked site, and is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics. -
scaddenp at 11:37 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
35cm deep gives a lot of thermal mass. Hardly comparable to measurement of GMST. IR hitting the ocean - change of topic again? Your point? By any chance is it misunderstandings with dealt with here? -
YOGI at 11:36 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
"[DB] Your two moderated comments were merely repetitions of unsupported assertions you made earlier.." Want do you require ? evidence that near Earth space temperature measurements give 121C maximum?, i.e. the same as Lunar daytime maximum. Or evidence of peak daytime temperature measurements on Earth being much less ? -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI - What do you think happens to back-radiation impinging on the ocean surface? Rather than presenting red-herrings and open questions, what assertions are you making about the behavior of the climate? You have thrown, quite frankly, a lot of open-ended questions about. Unless and until you bring forth a testable assertion, or a question relevant to the topic (i.e., with some explanation of how it supports/undermines a particular hypothesis), you are (IMO) just generating static. -
YOGI at 11:30 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
So what happens to all the IR back-radiation the hits the ocean surface ? -
Tom Curtis at 11:28 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
Camburn, if the entire Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet where to melt, that would raise sea level by approx. 66 meters. According to the site you linked to, surface water represents just 0.4% of total water in ice sheets, ice caps and glaciers. In other words, if all surface water was returned to the Ocean without replacement, it would raise sea levels by 280 mm. Conversely, a 6 mm fall in sea level only requires a 2.1% increase in total surface water, based on the information provided by your link. I fail to see how your link shows the 2010 La Nina could not have increased total surface water by 2%. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Addendum to my last post: * Earth with ~240 W/m^2 average insolation, 0.98 emissivity: ~ -18C temperature. -
YOGI at 11:24 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
scaddenp The Lunar Thermal Environment http://diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml Apollo soil temp` measurements at 35cm deep give an equatorial average of 255K with a diurnal variation of +/- 70K. -
Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI * Flat 1m^2 object, with perfectly insulating back, pure blackbody absorption/emission: 120.5C * With 0.98 IR emissivity (as per surface of Earth): 122.5C * With 0.612 IR emissivity (as per Earth surface as seen through the atmosphere): 171.9C * Conductive blackbody plate, two sides radiating: 57C And: * Earth (spherical object with larger surface area, 0.3-0.35 albedo in visible, 0.612 emissivity in IR): ~15C --- Details matter. -
Tom Curtis at 11:16 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI @30, if you are going to think scientifically, you need to be able to follow the implications of assumptions made. Specifically, for the 2.7 K, the assumption was made of no specific heat, ie, that temperatures will move to radiative equilibrium with no delay. On the Moon, the night time temperature is around 90 K because of the specific heat of the Lunar rocks which prevents instantaneous changes in temperature. In crater floors in polar regions that drops to about 40 K because of heat transfer by conduction. However, if you want to use the Moon as an example, its mean temperature at the equator is 220 K, with its overall mean being lower. It has this low mean temperature despite a lower albedo than Earth's. Once again, the point is clear that the Earth's atmosphere reduces maximum daytime temperatures but increases the Global Mean Surface Temperature (even before you consider the greenhouse effect).
-
Camburn at 11:06 AM on 28 February 2012Satellites find over 500 billion tons of land ice melting worldwide every year, headlines focus on Himalayas
DB@56: Refer to Rob Painting at 29 of this thread. He posted the temperature data of the 0-700M volume. Scaddenp: Your comment made me smile......you are 100% correct @ 58. We are talking abotu change at the noise level. However, the thought that the La Nina changed the rate by much is shown to be not correct by the link that I posted showing the distribution of fresh water on our planet. -
scaddenp at 10:58 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Okay, 35-44K for minimum temperature because the moon is heated and does have thermal mass. Doesn't exactly change the argument. Average temp would be 217K. Your assumption is still wrong. -
YOGI at 10:45 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
Moderator, why are you deleting my comments ?Response:[DB] Your two moderated comments were merely repetitions of unsupported assertions you made earlier, here. Supporting the earlier assertion with links to peer-reviewed studies appearing in reputable journals would be an example of adding to this discussion. Merely repeating yourself, such as you did, detracts from the discussion and begs intervention by the moderation staff.
-
JMurphy at 10:45 AM on 28 February 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #8
OK, JH, I'll try to 'send' something in over the next few days. -
YOGI at 10:44 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
#29 "the entire night side of the globe would be at approximately 2.7 K (the temperature of the cosmic background radiation)" Why are you throwing such wildly incorrect figures around ? Even the Moon`s night time does not get that cold. Even in the coldest place in our solar system, which is in craters of the S pole of the Moon it does not get that cold. -
Tom Curtis at 10:29 AM on 28 February 2012Postma disproved the greenhouse effect
YOGI @27, the mean global surface temperature is 288 degrees K, corresponding to a black body radiation of 390 W/m^2. The temperature required to match the Sun's 1368 W/m^2 TSI at noon, with the sun vertically overhead, and ignoring albedo and assuming zero specific heat would be 394 degrees K. However, the sun is not always vertically overhead everywhere. So if we ignore albedo and specific heat, the temperature everywhere else on Earth would be less than the point where the Sun is vertically overhead. Indeed, ignoring albedo and specific heat, the entire night side of the globe would be at approximately 2.7 K (the temperature of the cosmic background radiation) Any location within approx 2000 Km of the dawn or dusk but in full daylight would have a temperature less than 288 K. Most importantly, even if we assume all areas in full daylight are at 394 K, while all night areas are at 3 K, the Global Mean Surface Temperature would be 198.5 K. That is 90 degrees K less than the current GMST, and over 50 K less than the GMST of the ideal black body with perfect conduction which is used in simplified calculations of the Earth's effective temperature for radiative equilibrium. In other words, while the atmosphere (and ocean, and thermal capacity of rocks and soil) clearly do mitigate the peaks in daylight temperature, in doing so it also minimizes the minimums in night time temperatures. What is more, the overall effect is to increase the Global Mean Surface Temperature. So your assumption is wrong.
Prev 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 Next
