Here you can see that the CO2 and water vapor spectra overlap between the 15-20 micrometer wavelengths. https://wattsupwiththat.files....
In the dry arctic air, the greenhouse effect is mostly caused by the CO2. And yes, as the temperature rises, and the ice cover shrinks, more water will evaporate, adding a positive feedback.
You claimed that satellites don't measure air temps.
No, I claimed that they don't measure surface air temperature. There's a standard definition for that, and it doesn't mean the bottom half kilometer of the atmosphere. It means the temperature a small distance above the surface.
So not merely the 1m temps of a Stephenson Screen, but the bottom x00m or more
Right, the air temperature at 1meter above surface is what we are interested in. Satellites measure the bottom hundreds of meters, which is not the same. There's a huge gradient just above the surface. Thanks for confirming and elaborating.
All the climate models show that temperatures should rise faster closer to the arctic,
Makes sense too, because water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, with a spectrum that overlaps CO2. Since the arctic region has low water vapor, the effects of extra CO2 are stronger.
What's a little stupid about it is that it's about as unhealthy as a regular burger. I was expecting it to be healthier, maybe have some fiber and less fat, but it's just slightly fewer calories and just as fatty. Better for the earth, but not all that much better for consumer.
No, it was designed to make bigger profits using cheaper ingredients and a nice story about how you'll save the earth and your health so you're willing to pay more.
The BBC once broadcast a live chess match between a grandmaster and the people, who would call in and vote on the next move.
I appreciate your analogy, but calling the European Commission members "grandmasters" is a bit of a stretch. For example, the president Jean-Claude Juncker is usually so drunk that he can barely walk (search youtube for Juncker drunk to see some examples)
It also means you'll have an hour of extra daylight at the end of the day and that is more useful to most people
I like it a bit more balanced. Extra daylight at the end of the day is nice, but not at the cost of a morning commute in total darkness. In the winter it's too cold to enjoy the outdoors in the evening anyway.
I don't give a shit if it is pitch black out until I'm ready to leave work for the day
What about the days you don't work ? You want to go walk in the park on a sunday morning in darkness ? What if you have a job as a landscaper or construction worker or another outside job, and you have to work in the dark ?
Numerous studies show this causes an increase in accidents, heart attacks, and, yes, even deaths
That's only true if you focus on the couple of days right after the change. If you measure over the whole year, accidents get reduced, and heart attacks stay the same (people who get a heart attack because of a 1 hour time change would get the heart attack anyway, just at a later time)
Stop thinking that we somehow need to regulate our clocks to that yellow thing
Right, we should all work 9-5 on UTC time, and if that means you work and play in the dark, and go to sleep in the light, so be it. Stop thinking that you need the sun to enjoy a nice day on the beach, or a hike in the mountains, when you can simply bring some flashlights with you.
I always thought Spain would be in WET ? Maybe it's just is in the wrong time zone ? Why not take the opportunity and fix that too by switching from CET to WET and enjoy noon at midday ?
That's where it's supposed to be, but I guess they adopted CET for economic reasons, i.e. more overlapping business hours with trade partners.
Using UTC doesn't fix anything, because everybody will still have totally different schedules and office hours. And without official timezones, every business can decide for itself, which will cause a lot more confusion and chaos.
You DO realize that there are places of the world where the time zone DOESN'T change, right? They effectively are on "permanent DST" such as Arizona, Hawaii, etc.
You do realize that places closer to the equator don't have so much yearly variation in sunrise/sunset times as places closer to the poles ? Whatever works in Arizona doesn't necessarily work just as well in Norway.
The problem isn't so much that the sunlight interfers with your sleep, as you waste daylight hours asleep and then are active after sunset in the dark. It's better if you get up earlier and have more daylight at the end of the day, hence, daylight savings time
I see. In that case, I fully agree. That's why I would prefer to keep what we have now. Reasonable sunrise in the winter, and later sunset in the summer, when the early light is not useful.
No, the article is about one glacier. Plenty of other glaciers are still shrinking. Earth is still getting warmer, but at the same time, heat moves around, so some places can get extra warm, while others get cooler.
Slashdot Mirror
CO2 and H2O's spectra don't overlap
Here you can see that the CO2 and water vapor spectra overlap between the 15-20 micrometer wavelengths.
https://wattsupwiththat.files....
In the dry arctic air, the greenhouse effect is mostly caused by the CO2. And yes, as the temperature rises, and the ice cover shrinks, more water will evaporate, adding a positive feedback.
You claimed that satellites don't measure air temps.
No, I claimed that they don't measure surface air temperature. There's a standard definition for that, and it doesn't mean the bottom half kilometer of the atmosphere. It means the temperature a small distance above the surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not sure if you're trolling or stupid, but at least this conversation can help to educate others, so I guess it doesn't really matter either way.
So not merely the 1m temps of a Stephenson Screen, but the bottom x00m or more
Right, the air temperature at 1meter above surface is what we are interested in. Satellites measure the bottom hundreds of meters, which is not the same. There's a huge gradient just above the surface. Thanks for confirming and elaborating.
All the climate models show that temperatures should rise faster closer to the arctic,
Makes sense too, because water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, with a spectrum that overlaps CO2. Since the arctic region has low water vapor, the effects of extra CO2 are stronger.
the powers-that-be determined to heat the past rather than cool the current.
Since these are temperature anomalies, the effect would have been the same.
Besides, it's not a matter of preference. By examining dozens of stations at the same time, you decide which is the odd one out.
Satellites don't measure surface air temperature, unfortunately.
What's a little stupid about it is that it's about as unhealthy as a regular burger. I was expecting it to be healthier, maybe have some fiber and less fat, but it's just slightly fewer calories and just as fatty. Better for the earth, but not all that much better for consumer.
No, it was designed to make bigger profits using cheaper ingredients and a nice story about how you'll save the earth and your health so you're willing to pay more.
For $2.5 billion, I'll gladly let Microsoft remove my name from the splash screen.
If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
And an idiot, just in case you missed it.
Now we're going to have to generate about 25 large coal-burning power plants' worth of extra electricity if this rollback goes through
They assume everybody is going to remove the LED lights, and replace them with incandescents ?
The BBC once broadcast a live chess match between a grandmaster and the people, who would call in and vote on the next move.
I appreciate your analogy, but calling the European Commission members "grandmasters" is a bit of a stretch. For example, the president Jean-Claude Juncker is usually so drunk that he can barely walk (search youtube for Juncker drunk to see some examples)
It also means you'll have an hour of extra daylight at the end of the day and that is more useful to most people
I like it a bit more balanced. Extra daylight at the end of the day is nice, but not at the cost of a morning commute in total darkness. In the winter it's too cold to enjoy the outdoors in the evening anyway.
I don't give a shit if it is pitch black out until I'm ready to leave work for the day
What about the days you don't work ? You want to go walk in the park on a sunday morning in darkness ? What if you have a job as a landscaper or construction worker or another outside job, and you have to work in the dark ?
Numerous studies show this causes an increase in accidents, heart attacks, and, yes, even deaths
That's only true if you focus on the couple of days right after the change. If you measure over the whole year, accidents get reduced, and heart attacks stay the same (people who get a heart attack because of a 1 hour time change would get the heart attack anyway, just at a later time)
I want maximal daylight in the evening when it is actually useful to the most people including myself
So, you want daylight between noon and midnight ?
No more missed meetings improper timing because of timezone conversion
But instead you'll have missed meeting because you scheduled it at a time the other party wasn't in the office.
Stop thinking that we somehow need to regulate our clocks to that yellow thing
Right, we should all work 9-5 on UTC time, and if that means you work and play in the dark, and go to sleep in the light, so be it. Stop thinking that you need the sun to enjoy a nice day on the beach, or a hike in the mountains, when you can simply bring some flashlights with you.
Journalist won't be seeing a cent, because they sign over the copyright to the mega news corp they are working for.
It might have been a horrible idea to enter, it might be a really crappy position you're in, but leaving at the wrong moment may be even worse.
And there will never be a right moment. The EU will make sure of that.
I always thought Spain would be in WET ? Maybe it's just is in the wrong time zone ? Why not take the opportunity and fix that too by switching from CET to WET and enjoy noon at midday ?
That's where it's supposed to be, but I guess they adopted CET for economic reasons, i.e. more overlapping business hours with trade partners.
Using UTC doesn't fix anything, because everybody will still have totally different schedules and office hours. And without official timezones, every business can decide for itself, which will cause a lot more confusion and chaos.
You DO realize that there are places of the world where the time zone DOESN'T change, right? They effectively are on "permanent DST" such as Arizona, Hawaii, etc.
You do realize that places closer to the equator don't have so much yearly variation in sunrise/sunset times as places closer to the poles ? Whatever works in Arizona doesn't necessarily work just as well in Norway.
The problem isn't so much that the sunlight interfers with your sleep, as you waste daylight hours asleep and then are active after sunset in the dark. It's better if you get up earlier and have more daylight at the end of the day, hence, daylight savings time
I see. In that case, I fully agree. That's why I would prefer to keep what we have now. Reasonable sunrise in the winter, and later sunset in the summer, when the early light is not useful.
If we move to permanent DST, my sunrise will be around 10 am in the winter. I'll hate that more than spending a few minutes changing the clocks.
Glaciers growing again?
No, the article is about one glacier. Plenty of other glaciers are still shrinking. Earth is still getting warmer, but at the same time, heat moves around, so some places can get extra warm, while others get cooler.