|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 30, 2013 0:25:49 GMT
The reason deserts are so hot is from lack of water in the soil, not the bright color of the sand; the same reason why they are so cold at night. Place vegetation in the desert sand that requires no moisture (ex. artificial plants), and the daytime surface temperatures would be higher, but the night would still get cold. The darker the soil, the hotter the surface temperature.
If vegetation that requires moisture is planted, daytime surface temperatures would be cooler, and nighttime warmer.
There's a reason why the tropics are cooler in the daytime than deserts at the same latitude and altitude, and warmer at night.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 30, 2013 0:29:40 GMT
The reason deserts are so hot is from lack of water in the soil, not the bright color of the sand; the same reason why they are so cold at night. Place vegetation in the desert sand that requires no moisture (ex. artificial plants), and the daytime surface temperatures would be higher, but the night would still get cold. The darker the soil, the hotter the surface temperature. If vegetation that requires moisture is planted, daytime surface temperatures would be cooler, and nighttime warmer. There's a reason why the tropics are cooler in the daytime than deserts at the same latitude and altitude, and warmer at night. Got that right, buddy. |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 30, 2013 0:50:02 GMT
Houston, we have a problem. . . So, why the point of inflection on the curve every year since 2010 around the middle-to-end of July?
What's causing this? Maybe world-wide,one-day moratorium on burning fossil fuels? If so, I missed the memo on the event. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 30, 2013 1:22:02 GMT
Mike Not sure what you mean by aerosols but even the changing composition of agriculture could have a big difference to the compostion of the materials in the lower atomosphere. What happens when the European Commission subsidises vast acreages of oil seed rape for example? All of those oils gums vapours and what not coming from plants could easily alter life on earth via GHE. However it would still amount to man made warming. And probably just irrigating countries makes much more difference via increasing water vapour over very dry areas - especially in the very low atmosphere near these areas, which must play a big role in heat retention by night and by day. For example Death Valley which used to be as dry as a bone is going to be warmer if you have tourists visiting it and a few farms popping up relatively near to take advantage of all that sun and heat. It must all add up one way or another?
Clouds play an important atmospheric role both in terms of heat retention, AND in terms of UV reflection--a point often neglected in AGW modeling. My previous post has everything to do with the albedo qualities of tropospheric clouds, since larger cloud formations tend to reflect greater amounts of UV radiation as the zenith angle increases. As my simple chart demonstrated, the effects of changes in the zenith angle become extreme during this time of year, in terms of the potential of atmospheric interference with UV radiation over distance through the atmosphere.
Yes, irrigation (especially from groundwater sources) can play a role in cloud formation, as can CO2, galactic cosmic rays, etc. It would be a huge mistake to assume that cloud cover only traps heat through its GH qualities. Clouds also play an important role in protecting the planet from excess solar radiation.
Water vapour still plays a role in a desert with totally blue sky - which was the point i was making with for example death valley. |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 30, 2013 4:00:42 GMT
I mean anything defined as an aerosol, be it anthropogenic or natural. I especially mean water vapor as it is the most important green house gas and aerosol.
Clouds play an important atmospheric role both in terms of heat retention, AND in terms of UV reflection--a point often neglected in AGW modeling. My previous post has everything to do with the albedo qualities of tropospheric clouds, since larger cloud formations tend to reflect greater amounts of UV radiation as the zenith angle increases. As my simple chart demonstrated, the effects of changes in the zenith angle become extreme during this time of year, in terms of the potential of atmospheric interference with UV radiation over distance through the atmosphere.
Yes, irrigation (especially from groundwater sources) can play a role in cloud formation, as can CO2, galactic cosmic rays, etc. It would be a huge mistake to assume that cloud cover only traps heat through its GH qualities. Clouds also play an important role in protecting the planet from excess solar radiation.
Water vapour still plays a role in a desert with totally blue sky - which was the point i was making with for example death valley.
Because water droplets are so small in the arctic, the visible light spectrum isn't skewed in a manner that creates colorful rainbows. The colors of a rainbow depend on the size of the water droplets. Bright red only appears when there are big raindrops, but when the droplets are small, the rainbow angles of the different spectral colors overlap in a way that they add up to white light.
The radius and thickness of a fogbow also depend on droplet size. As the droplets get smaller, the fogbow gets broader (usually about twice as wide as a normal rainbow) but its radius decreases. Unscientifically put, they're paler, shorter and fatter.
The size of water droplets has an effect on the Invisible Spectrum of UV radiation as well, as does zenith angles in the arctic. I'm not certain that scientists have put enough effort into understanding these dynamics in the Arctic.
I'm not certain the IPCC understands the nature of precipitation in the arctic.
In a 2006 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a consortium of scientists from the Universities of New Hampshire and Delaware reported on their research that engaged the idea that “both theoretical arguments and models suggest that net high-latitude precipitation increases in proportion to increases in mean hemispheric temperature.” This idea stems from the basic atmospheric principle that warm air stores more water vapor than cold air. Citing the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2005), the authors state that in regard to the Arctic, “Warming is predicted to enhance atmospheric moisture storage resulting in increased net precipitation, since precipitation increases will likely exceed evaporative losses.”
World Climate Report article
In contradiction to theory, Rawlins et al. report that annual rainfall across the total area of the six basins that they studied actually decreased consistently and significantly over the last three decades of the twentieth century.
The findings of the work are significant because they go against the theory, and therefore, model predictions, that “net high-latitude precipitation increases in proportion to increases in mean hemispheric temperature.” If this theory is wrong it represents a significant blow to the established principles of atmospheric physics.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jul 30, 2013 5:07:16 GMT
is that not an ice-bow?
|
|
andor
Level 2 Rank
Posts: 60
|
Post by andor on Jul 30, 2013 8:37:24 GMT
Looking at the Antarctic we are heading for a record ice here!
Don't forget we have summers and winters in both hemispheres!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 30, 2013 11:37:49 GMT
I've heard people call them ice-bows before.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 30, 2013 15:40:40 GMT
Water vapour still plays a role in a desert with totally blue sky - which was the point i was making with for example death valley.
Because water droplets are so small in the arctic, the visible light spectrum isn't skewed in a manner that creates colorful rainbows. The colors of a rainbow depend on the size of the water droplets. Bright red only appears when there are big raindrops, but when the droplets are small, the rainbow angles of the different spectral colors overlap in a way that they add up to white light.
The radius and thickness of a fogbow also depend on droplet size. As the droplets get smaller, the fogbow gets broader (usually about twice as wide as a normal rainbow) but its radius decreases. Unscientifically put, they're paler, shorter and fatter.
The size of water droplets has an effect on the Invisible Spectrum of UV radiation as well, as does zenith angles in the arctic. I'm not certain that scientists have put enough effort into understanding these dynamics in the Arctic.
I'm not certain the IPCC understands the nature of precipitation in the arctic.
In a 2006 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a consortium of scientists from the Universities of New Hampshire and Delaware reported on their research that engaged the idea that “both theoretical arguments and models suggest that net high-latitude precipitation increases in proportion to increases in mean hemispheric temperature.” This idea stems from the basic atmospheric principle that warm air stores more water vapor than cold air. Citing the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2005), the authors state that in regard to the Arctic, “Warming is predicted to enhance atmospheric moisture storage resulting in increased net precipitation, since precipitation increases will likely exceed evaporative losses.”
World Climate Report article
In contradiction to theory, Rawlins et al. report that annual rainfall across the total area of the six basins that they studied actually decreased consistently and significantly over the last three decades of the twentieth century.
The findings of the work are significant because they go against the theory, and therefore, model predictions, that “net high-latitude precipitation increases in proportion to increases in mean hemispheric temperature.” If this theory is wrong it represents a significant blow to the established principles of atmospheric physics.
You need to look at it through a filter, then the mystery is solved.  |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 30, 2013 16:05:57 GMT
You need to look at it through a filter, then the mystery is solved. |
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jul 30, 2013 18:36:43 GMT
Oh Ice fisher! Your graph misses out on 2013??? What will our current temp peak do to your hypothosis??? Is it just 'Weather' again? Meanwhile, back to the Arctic. Canadian ice service have introduced a new ice type "Decayed Ice"....just in time for the retirement of "Paleocryistic ice" ( not seen in the basin since 2011......and at least 10yrs away from it's reintroduction by it's very nature....). We know how 'Paleocryistic ice' dealt with minor summer cyclones but how does 'Decayed ice'  We're about to find out. Keep an eye on 'Area' over the next 5 days! |
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jul 30, 2013 18:49:12 GMT
I'm not wery good at this copy and paste stuff I'm afraid. In any case, it's almost been five days since your post, Mr. Wolf, and I've been keeping an eye on Arctic Ice Area just as you've suggested. The trend line appears to have gone horizontal. Is that what you expected?
|
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jul 30, 2013 21:09:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 30, 2013 21:47:39 GMT
NOT YET. . . Arctic Sea Ice is Good (when it's in the Arctic) |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 30, 2013 23:12:05 GMT
If that temperature stays down there it will be a little scary. I would worry about the cold of the coming winter. The CAGW proponents of course will be stuck out on the plank of Arctic death spiral trying to say that early refreeze is what is expected and keep a straight face..
|
|
We're about to find out. Keep an eye on 'Area' over the next 5 days!
