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

Don Klipstein don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx posted to sci.electronics.design:

In article <Nr7yi.18569$eY.9431@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
JosephKK wrote:
Don Klipstein don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx posted to sci.electronics.design:

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)

You really need to recheck your geometry. Intercept angles.

Sunlight over 1 day at north pole during summer solstice: 1366
watts
per square meter, times sine of 23.45 degrees:

Wrong! The correct value is 66.55 degrees. It is the Artic circle
not the tropic circle.


543 watts per square meter. Of course about half that gets
scattered by the atmosphere before reaching the surface.

Sunlight over 1 day at equator during equinox: 1366 watts per
square
meter, times 2 over pi, times 12 hours over 24 hours:

Daily average of 435 watts per square meter. I suspect about 1/3
of that
gets scattered by the atmosphere. I know that at high noon only
about 20% is scattered.

Meanwhile, Wiki has a map of average yearround insolation in a
color
coded map, obviously including even effects of clouds.

The lowest insolation area in the arctic shown on that map is
east of
Greenland and northwest of Scandanavia, and appears to me to be
color-coded to indicate for between 60 and 80 watts per square
meter. A small part of Greenland and a good size chunk of
Antarctica appears to me to be colo-coded for 120-140 watts per
square meter.

Gosh That is a LOT lower 1366 W / m^2 cited above.


The highest insolation areas in the tropics appear to me to be
color
coded for 280-300 watts per square meter.

Not the least bit consistent are you.


- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?
    ... So a day's worth of unclouded sunlight on the North Pole in late ... Sunlight over 1 day at north pole during summer solstice: 1366 watts ... 543 watts per square meter. ... scattered by the atmosphere before reaching the surface. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: is the AGW bubble about to burst?
    ... Just try seeing what my 543 watts per square meter during summer ... scattered by the atmosphere before reaching the surface. ... reducing it by my estimated 1/3 for atmospheric scattering. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT - Global Warming Revisited
    ... It's a scientific given that 85 extra parts per million of CO2 in the ... atmosphere is adding 1.5 watts per square meter. ... Out of 1.1 kW per square meter of sunlight? ... but Pluto is -360 degrees Fahrenheit. ...
    (alt.machines.cnc)
  • Re: population sizes for colonising a planet
    ... >>energy from the Sun that one human consumes. ... human body produce about 100 watts and on average each square meter ... >of the Earth gets about 350 watts, at least at the top of the atmosphere. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)