Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?

In article <rlRxi.1057$vU4.122@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, JosephKK wrote:
bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:

On Aug 17, 2:22 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don Klipstein d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:

In article <46C26978.7CCEB...@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eeyore wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Most sea ice was never on land in the first place. Hence
won't ever
affect sea level. Check out the North Pole for example.

Perfectly true and quite irrelevant.

So why is there so green-inspiured much fuss over it ?

1. It is an indicator that there is goobal warming that will
do worse things in the future.

Why do you assume that a warming world has to be 'worse' ? I'm
enjoying the warmer winters in particular and it results in
reduced energy use too.

A warmer world will also have warmer summers. Thankfully,
winters
should warm more than summers in most parts of the world that
have both as far as I understand things.

Meanwhile, there is such a thing as people and regions that
have a worse
time with summers than with winters.

2. Replacing sea ice with sea increasesabsorption of
sunlight, so this is a positive feedback mechanism for global
warming.

The incident angle of sunlight at the poles means that this is
a minor effect.

If one merely neglects atmospheric absorption, incoming
radiation at the
poles exceeds peak at the equator about 70-72 days of the year
and average
at the equator about 74-75 days of the year. After what the
atmosphere does to incoming solar radiation, I surely expect
this to remain being significant.

Gee, neglecting one of the most important factors in evaluating
ground received energy flux does not sound like good science to
me.

He didn't neglect it, merely estimated that the somewhat longer
path length wasn't going to make enough difference to matter in
what was an essentially qualitative exposition.

I was neglecting longer atmospheric path length only because that causes
some reduction of an effect that remains quite significant.
So a day's worth of unclouded sunlight on the North Pole in late June
may be roughly the same amount of incoming solar radiation, maybe slightly
less as opposed to 22-23% more than what the equator gets during an
equinox. I think that is still significant.

<SNIP therefrom>

- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?
    ... JosephKK wrote: ... at the equator about 74-75 days of the year. ... So a day's worth of unclouded sunlight on the North Pole in ... may be roughly the same amount of incoming solar radiation, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?
    ... I'm enjoying the warmer winters in particular and it ... at the equator about 74-75 days of the year. ... So a day's worth of unclouded sunlight on the North Pole in ... may be roughly the same amount of incoming solar radiation, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?
    ... Don Klipstein don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx posted to sci.electronics.design: ... at the equator about 74-75 days of the year. ... neglecting one of the most important factors in evaluating ... So a day's worth of unclouded sunlight on the North Pole in late ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: WARNING: AMD64 Daylight saving time issue.
    ... >>Equator to the North Pole, to the resolution of the wavelength of light, ... North Pole to Equator through Paris. ... to be one/ten-millionth of the distance of the North Pole ... we end up with an arbitrary metre anyway. ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Arctic Ice
    ... solar radiation received at the north poles is the same as that at the ... but I wrote Equator not Tropic of Cancer. ... receives more daily radiation than the North Pole. ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
Loading