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

On Aug 22, 11:49 am, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:





On Aug 21, 8:13 am, JosephKK <joseph_barr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Don Klipstein d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:

In article <Nr7yi.18569$eY.9...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
JosephKK wrote:
Don Klipstein d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx posted to
sci.electronics.design:

In article <rlRxi.1057$vU4....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
JosephKK wrote:
bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx bill.slo...@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 (d...@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.

Beginners error.

Not.

The cosine of 66.55 degrees equals the sine of
23.45 degrees.

Actually correct.

You use one or the other depending on your point of
view.

WTF? You clearly do not understand when to use either one, nor why.

Provided that you get the right intensity, it doesn't matter what you
call the number that you plug in. If you had ever done this kind of
calculation, you might understand that.

In fact your 66.55 degree angle represents latitude, and 23.45 degrees
corresponds to the angle between the incident light and the relevant
bit of the earth's surface, so using the sine of that angle makes the
calculation slightly easier to follow, but - as I said - provided that
you keep track of what is going on, using sine 23.45 or cosine 66.55
gives exactly the same answer.

That you thought that the difference was important enough for you to
waste bandwidth on an entirely pointles quibble makes it obvious that
you haven't got a clue.

The fact that you didn't see this strips you of the last tattered
shreds of your credibility.

Speak for yourself, not that you ever had any credibility.

You think that your opinion means anything?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

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: Sorting 2 colums..how?
    ... uses a distance and an angle from a given line from the zero point. ... the same way longitude is used on earth, the prime meridian is the zero ... if you use the north pole as ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)
  • spherical triangle
    ... Somewhere in the triangle lies the origin (North ... From two of the points of the triangle, we know the distance ... (angle between vector to point and North pole) ... can one computes the distance (angle) to the third point? ...
    (sci.math)