You really need to do some more research into the subject. In no way is ocean warming incompatible with "the CO2 driven greenhouse gas hypothesis". The oceans and atmosphere are pretty closely coupled and what happens in one affects the other.
That tide gauge wasn't installed until 1993. I found one for Kwajalein Atoll that's been there since 1947. It does show sea level rise of around 6 inches. There are several big dips in the sea level that appear to correspond to El Nino years when the winds push water toward the Eastern Pacific.
That tide gauge wasn't even installed until 1993. I found one for Kwajalein Atoll that's been there since 1947. It does show sea level rise of around 6 inches. There are several big dips in the sea level that appear to correspond to El Nino years when the winds push water toward the Eastern Pacific.
No one was wrong about cooling. There were a few speculative papers about the possibilities but there were 7 times as many about warming (from 1965 to 1979).
Here's the tide gauge for Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshal Islands. It looks like it was put in in 1946 or 1947. Since then there's been over 6 inches of SLR in the Marshalls. 6 inches vertical rise means many feet of horizontal spread. When your maximum elevation is about 6 feet all it takes is a large king tide or major storm surge to wash over the islands.
In looking at the graph it has dropped quite a bit in the past year. I believe that is because of the El Nino which pushes more water toward the Eastern Pacific. If you look back in the graph there were big drops in the 1997/1998 and 1982/1983 which also were strong El Nino years.
Ah, you're right about the formula. It's the "/4*sigma" part that accounts for the difference in area between a disk and a sphere as in the area of a circle is pi*R^2 and the area of a sphere is 4*pi*R^2. My bad. The Wikipedia page on Climate Models has a pretty good explanation of the formula. If Hansen and all the others studying the climate are wrong as you say then you should publish your proofs. It's pretty basic stuff.
I agree that the radiation per unit area will drop as you get away from the point of the Earth closest to the Sun because the angle of the surface compared to the incoming radiation increases spreading out that radiation over more area. But wouldn't a flat disk that was the radius of the Earth that was perpendicular to the Sun intercept the same amount of radiation as the spherical Earth does, just over more area?
I think you got your formula "Te = [So(1 -A)/4*sigma] ^(1/4)" wrong. Shouldn't it be "Te = [So(1 -A)/4*sigma]*(1/4)"? It's that "*(1/4)" factor that accounts for the area increase of a sphere over a flat disk.
As I said I sincerely doubt Hansen got that calculation wrong. He got a PhD in astrophysics in the 1970's and was studying Venus and other planets before he turned his attention to Earth. If he got that wrong it would have been pointed out by others long ago. It's too simple a thing to be otherwise.
It doesn't work that way. In the carbon cycle there are three great reservoirs of carbon, the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere/soil. The distribution ratio of carbon between them remains about the same regardless of the total amount of carbon in the cycle (at least so far). If we reduce emissions by 50% the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will slow but the increase in the oceans and biosphere/soil will also slow by equivalent amounts. So atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase, just at half the current rate. The only long run answer is to reduce net anthropogenic carbon emissions to zero.
You really need to get over that exhaling CO2 thing. The CO2 you exhale comes completely from CO2 that plants absorbed not too long before you ate them (or ate the animals that ate them). Now there may be fossil fuels used in processing and delivering the food to you but that's not a requirement. The CO2 and methane you emit from your body has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.
As an astrophysicist I doubt Hansen got the calculation wrong. Concave or convex is pretty much the same thing when it comes to the impingement of radiation on the surface and the distance to the Sun from the point on the Earth closest to the Sun and the terminator is pretty much a rounding error compared to the distance to the Sun.
In the long run the only way to stop the problem is to reduce net carbon emissions to zero. If we don't it probably means the end of our complex worldwide civilization within 100 years. Yes we're a long way from zero carbon emissions but as they say the longest journey starts with the first step.
I'll be shocked if in 20 years the percentage of new vehicles being sold that are electric isn't greater than 50% and it wouldn't surprise me if it's more like 80%.
If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?
Maybe if you only look at the atmosphere. But if you look at the oceans they have continued to warm without pause and over 90% of the climate warming is going into the oceans anyway. But you're going to have to retire that "no significant warming" meme after the end of this year because 2015 is going to blow the old records out of the water.
The pullout from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administration and carried out by Obama after the Iraqi's refused to negotiate a satisfactory Status of Forces Agreement that would allow us to remain. I kind of agree with you on the funneling weapons to the anti-Assad issue though.
If you had read the rest of his post you would have seen that he was referring to the Barbary Pirates preying on US merchants way back in the early 1800's.
Obama's pull out of Iraq was based on an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration and the unwillingness of the Iraqi's to negotiate a satisfactory Status of Forces Agreement to allow US soldiers to remain. Given what ISIS/ISIL/Dae'sh has become maybe the Iraqi's are sorry about that now.
The Bush/Cheney "rush to war" wasn't poll-driven, nor was it a "rush" in that it took almost a year and included multiple attempts at UN consensus and Congressional approval.
Bush/Cheney and the neocons were looking for any excuse they could find to invade Iraq even before they came into office in 2001. 9/11 just provided that for them. It had nothing to do with any serious threat from Iraq.
Probably better than assuming all the bias is in one direction. One of the best ways to make your name in science is to discover something that makes a significant change to the current dogma.
Ah, the arrogance of the engineer. Why don't you write a scientific paper to show them the error of their ways?
Regarding measuring ice loss I think the GRACE satellites tell the story. They measure changes in gravity around the Earth. They show large losses in mass around Greenland and West Antarctica.
Slashdot Mirror
You really need to do some more research into the subject. In no way is ocean warming incompatible with "the CO2 driven greenhouse gas hypothesis". The oceans and atmosphere are pretty closely coupled and what happens in one affects the other.
That tide gauge wasn't installed until 1993. I found one for Kwajalein Atoll that's been there since 1947. It does show sea level rise of around 6 inches. There are several big dips in the sea level that appear to correspond to El Nino years when the winds push water toward the Eastern Pacific.
That tide gauge wasn't even installed until 1993. I found one for Kwajalein Atoll that's been there since 1947. It does show sea level rise of around 6 inches. There are several big dips in the sea level that appear to correspond to El Nino years when the winds push water toward the Eastern Pacific.
No one was wrong about cooling. There were a few speculative papers about the possibilities but there were 7 times as many about warming (from 1965 to 1979).
Here's the tide gauge for Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshal Islands. It looks like it was put in in 1946 or 1947. Since then there's been over 6 inches of SLR in the Marshalls. 6 inches vertical rise means many feet of horizontal spread. When your maximum elevation is about 6 feet all it takes is a large king tide or major storm surge to wash over the islands.
In looking at the graph it has dropped quite a bit in the past year. I believe that is because of the El Nino which pushes more water toward the Eastern Pacific. If you look back in the graph there were big drops in the 1997/1998 and 1982/1983 which also were strong El Nino years.
Ah, you're right about the formula. It's the "/4*sigma" part that accounts for the difference in area between a disk and a sphere as in the area of a circle is pi*R^2 and the area of a sphere is 4*pi*R^2. My bad. The Wikipedia page on Climate Models has a pretty good explanation of the formula. If Hansen and all the others studying the climate are wrong as you say then you should publish your proofs. It's pretty basic stuff.
I agree that the radiation per unit area will drop as you get away from the point of the Earth closest to the Sun because the angle of the surface compared to the incoming radiation increases spreading out that radiation over more area. But wouldn't a flat disk that was the radius of the Earth that was perpendicular to the Sun intercept the same amount of radiation as the spherical Earth does, just over more area?
I think you got your formula "Te = [So(1 -A)/4*sigma] ^(1/4)" wrong. Shouldn't it be "Te = [So(1 -A)/4*sigma]*(1/4)"? It's that "*(1/4)" factor that accounts for the area increase of a sphere over a flat disk.
As I said I sincerely doubt Hansen got that calculation wrong. He got a PhD in astrophysics in the 1970's and was studying Venus and other planets before he turned his attention to Earth. If he got that wrong it would have been pointed out by others long ago. It's too simple a thing to be otherwise.
It doesn't work that way. In the carbon cycle there are three great reservoirs of carbon, the atmosphere, the oceans and the biosphere/soil. The distribution ratio of carbon between them remains about the same regardless of the total amount of carbon in the cycle (at least so far). If we reduce emissions by 50% the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will slow but the increase in the oceans and biosphere/soil will also slow by equivalent amounts. So atmospheric CO2 would continue to increase, just at half the current rate. The only long run answer is to reduce net anthropogenic carbon emissions to zero.
You really need to get over that exhaling CO2 thing. The CO2 you exhale comes completely from CO2 that plants absorbed not too long before you ate them (or ate the animals that ate them). Now there may be fossil fuels used in processing and delivering the food to you but that's not a requirement. The CO2 and methane you emit from your body has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.
That horse left the barn a long time ago. there hasn't been a formal declaration of war by the US since World War II.
As an astrophysicist I doubt Hansen got the calculation wrong. Concave or convex is pretty much the same thing when it comes to the impingement of radiation on the surface and the distance to the Sun from the point on the Earth closest to the Sun and the terminator is pretty much a rounding error compared to the distance to the Sun.
Over half of the mercury in the environment in Oregon comes from coal burning in China.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas but it's also relatively short lived in the atmosphere. Most of it oxidizes to CO2 in 10 or 20 years.
In the long run the only way to stop the problem is to reduce net carbon emissions to zero. If we don't it probably means the end of our complex worldwide civilization within 100 years. Yes we're a long way from zero carbon emissions but as they say the longest journey starts with the first step.
I'll be shocked if in 20 years the percentage of new vehicles being sold that are electric isn't greater than 50% and it wouldn't surprise me if it's more like 80%.
If he's 15 years old there hasn't been any statistically significant temperature increase in his lifetime. What is he complaining about?
Maybe if you only look at the atmosphere. But if you look at the oceans they have continued to warm without pause and over 90% of the climate warming is going into the oceans anyway. But you're going to have to retire that "no significant warming" meme after the end of this year because 2015 is going to blow the old records out of the water.
The pullout from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administration and carried out by Obama after the Iraqi's refused to negotiate a satisfactory Status of Forces Agreement that would allow us to remain. I kind of agree with you on the funneling weapons to the anti-Assad issue though.
I believe you meant the Sami people.
If you had read the rest of his post you would have seen that he was referring to the Barbary Pirates preying on US merchants way back in the early 1800's.
Obama's pull out of Iraq was based on an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration and the unwillingness of the Iraqi's to negotiate a satisfactory Status of Forces Agreement to allow US soldiers to remain. Given what ISIS/ISIL/Dae'sh has become maybe the Iraqi's are sorry about that now.
The Bush/Cheney "rush to war" wasn't poll-driven, nor was it a "rush" in that it took almost a year and included multiple attempts at UN consensus and Congressional approval.
Bush/Cheney and the neocons were looking for any excuse they could find to invade Iraq even before they came into office in 2001. 9/11 just provided that for them. It had nothing to do with any serious threat from Iraq.
The bats that are insectivores are not the same bats that serve as pollinators. I'm not sure that is absolutely true but is mostly is.
Probably better than assuming all the bias is in one direction. One of the best ways to make your name in science is to discover something that makes a significant change to the current dogma.
Ah, the arrogance of the engineer. Why don't you write a scientific paper to show them the error of their ways?
Regarding measuring ice loss I think the GRACE satellites tell the story. They measure changes in gravity around the Earth. They show large losses in mass around Greenland and West Antarctica.
Well, it's kind of dim but I can see it. FF 42.0 on Windows 7.