|
Post by donmartin on May 25, 2009 19:24:35 GMT
It may be. However, the disposition of the ice cap on Mars is probably dependent on a number of variables including atmospheric motion and the atmospheric content of the ice cap. On Earth, for example, diminishment of glaciers includes evaporation which occurs at lower than melting temperatures. Evaporation of ice is rapid in the 'cold, dry Martian climate' according to the findings of the Phoenix spacecraft.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 25, 2009 19:44:17 GMT
The reality is that the warming rate is significantly lower than any number you've suggested INCLUDING the raw physics of CO2 absorption. You just need to deal with the fact that models of poorly understood processes just aren't something to be trusted...especially when they don't fit with reality. This has been discussed in various places. The evidence is in favor of the warming continuing, not it having stopped. [/quote] And again "The reality is that the warming rate is significantly lower than any number you've suggested INCLUDING the raw physics of CO2 absorption." Everyone's gloom and doom scenarios are baseless crap. They ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. Until there is the slightest hint of data to the contrary...you guys need to stop spouting it as if it were a likely scenario. There are no signs of the AGW apocalypse or even the supposedly "expected" warming from increased CO2 absorption. It would be nice help if maybe you guys could admit that you don't have a leg to stand on with respect to the IPCC guestimates...but then nobody would panic, now would they...because there's no need to. There are no signs of tragedy on the horizon other than the actions you would have us take to avoid your imaginary apocalypse.
|
|
|
Post by enough on May 26, 2009 12:26:43 GMT
From the DiPuccio/Pielke post:
"On the other hand, the current lapse in heat accumulation demonstrates a complete failure of the AGW hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, etc.). If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.
Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science."
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 2, 2009 1:18:37 GMT
Assuming that the graph of the OHC is true, although the OHC has not been going up (as predicted) in the last few years, the value in 2003 was already higher than some of the skeptic predictions. This is a bit confusing to me.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 2, 2009 1:25:52 GMT
The moon is affected by the tidal bulge because there is a delay between the bulge forming and the moon's position, so the position of the moon is not directly above the bulge (otherwise, there would be no net torque). It would seem that Jupiter would cause the major bulge, if any, in the sun, and that that would affect the earth more that a tiny bulge from the earth. Perhaps the seemingly larger effect averages out?
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 5, 2009 13:53:42 GMT
This might seem obvious to some of you, or it may be a dumb question, but it strikes me that, since there is more land in the NH, and since land heats up faster than water, that the average global termperature might naturally be warmer in the NH summer. Is this correct? Is there any seasonal effect?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 5, 2009 14:47:29 GMT
This might seem obvious to some of you, or it may be a dumb question, but it strikes me that, since there is more land in the NH, and since land heats up faster than water, that the average global termperature might naturally be warmer in the NH summer. Is this correct? Is there any seasonal effect?
You're right. Even though the earth receives ~7% more solar energy in January than it does in July.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 5, 2009 16:46:44 GMT
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 15, 2009 13:47:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 15, 2009 15:38:47 GMT
trbixler: "A fascinating read about how we are governed wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/#more-8500" Makes considerably more sense than a few hundred parts per million of CO2 controlling the climate. At the very least it is not counter-intuitive. Anyone who has ever spent any time in the tropics should know that the water cycle is a negative feedback. Remove the water vapor and clouds from an equatorial rainforest and you will get another Sahara Desert, only hotter due to the more direct sun angle. The fatal and glaring flaw in the hysterical catastrophic AGW theory is the goofy assumption that increased water vapor is a positive feedback. Let's see if the warmistas care to discuss this interesting theory. When I first came to the board I asked kenfeldman: ken: " If both quantum mechanics and the conservation of energy are true, then if you increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet will warm." me: What effect would doubling the primary GHG water vapor have ken? Would that cause the great deserts to be as hot as the equatorial rainforests? No reply yet.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 15, 2009 19:04:53 GMT
Not all clouds are equal. If I recall correctly ones higher up provide more of a warming effect than a cooling effect while lower ones provide the inverse.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 15, 2009 20:35:04 GMT
Not all clouds are equal. If I recall correctly ones higher up provide more of a warming effect than a cooling effect while lower ones provide the inverse. Ah...so you are saying there are both positive and negative climactic feedbacks? Good to hear.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 15, 2009 21:00:51 GMT
soclod: "Not all clouds are equal. If I recall correctly ones higher up provide more of a warming effect than a cooling effect while lower ones provide the inverse."
Well, that's a comprehensive understanding of clouds. Maybe you should pass that info on to the IPCC modelers.
Apparently you have not read the article link: Why don't you read it? I doubt that realclimate has worked up their hysterical potshot refutation yet. Here is an excerpt: Pick it apart.
"This is not simple negative feedback. It is the climate governing system. As the temperature continues to rise, as the evaporation climbs, some of the fluffy cumulus clouds suddenly transform themselves. They rapidly extend skywards, thrusting up to form pillars of cloud thousands of meters high in a short time. These cumulus are transformed into cumulonimbus or thunderstorm clouds. The columnar body of the thunderstorm acts as a huge vertical heat pipe. The thunderstorm sucks up warm, moist air at the surface and shoots it skyward. At altitude the water condenses, transforming the latent heat into sensible heat. The air is rewarmed by this release of sensible heat, and continues to rise.
At the top, the air is released from the cloud up high, way above most of the CO2. In that rarified atmosphere, the air is much freer to radiate to space. By moving inside the thunderstorm heat pipe, the air bypasses most of the greenhouse gases and comes out near the top of the troposphere. During the transport aloft, there is no radiative or turbulent interaction between the rising air and the lower and middle troposphere. Inside the thunderstorm, the rising air is tunneled through most of the troposphere to emerge at the top.
In addition to reflecting sunlight from their top surface as cumulus clouds do, and transporting heat to the upper troposphere where it radiates easily to space, thunderstorms cool the surface in a variety of other ways, particularly over the ocean."
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 16, 2009 11:44:12 GMT
Not all clouds are equal. If I recall correctly ones higher up provide more of a warming effect than a cooling effect while lower ones provide the inverse. You do not recall correctly or if you do its from a paper that is now outdated. It all depends on the cloud type - with high tropical convective clouds having significant 'negative forcing' (aka feedback) > 100Wm -2. "The corresponding cloud net radiative forcings at the top of the atmosphere for these cloud types range from +20 to −119 W m−2. This great variation in net radiative effect arises mostly from the reflectivity of the clouds, which is primarily dependent on the water and/or ice content of the clouds."Tropical Convection and the Energy Balance at the Top of the Atmosphere - Dennis L. Hartmann, Leslie A. Moy, and Qiang Fu AMS Journal of Climate ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=res-loc&uri=urn%3Aap%3Apdf%3Adoi%3A10.1175%2F1520-0442%282001%29014%3C4495%3ATCATEB%3E2.0.CO%3B2And of course you will note that to form ice crystals water vapor has frozen getting colder and releasing latent heat of fusion
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 18:24:30 GMT
Not all clouds are equal. If I recall correctly ones higher up provide more of a warming effect than a cooling effect while lower ones provide the inverse. Ah...so you are saying there are both positive and negative climactic feedbacks? Good to hear.
|
|