It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: mbkennel
The fact that we have no clue why some El Niños are stronger than others and we don't even know what causes an El Niño in the first place, says a lot about our knowledge of the climate.
It is easy to explain a greenhouse effect in theory but the reality is a lot more complicated.
Models are nothing more than 'complicated' math. It doesn't use real observations. So it's also easy to change and tweak outcome.
Unless we have full knowledge of how the climate works, we have no right to assume anything,
especially not letting people pay for 'their' so called contributions to climate change or spreading fear we will destroy the earth unless we stop using our cars, don't stay too long under the shower or for not using energy saving lightbulbs.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for a cleaner earth, air and water but there is too much political, economic influence playing part in it all and begin to wonder who or what has control at which agenda.
Everyone these days are climate experts even moviestars.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mbkennel
Why is the ice melting faster?
Might have something to do with the increased temperature of the Bering current.
The change in albedo is a feedback parameter on climate sensitivity.
Yes it is. But this one is minor due to the earth's curvature. The Arctic (and Antarctic) receive the least amount of solar energy, thus the albedo change at the poles has the least effect of a similar albedo change in other locations.
originally posted by: CJCrawley
I would like to point out, for the benefit of our US members (and that would therefore be the great majority), that the Daily Mail is a British tabloid newspaper which has a deserved reputation for running sensationalist stories, designed rather to shock and scare than to edify. It is for this reason that many Britons refer to it ironically as the 'Daily Fail'.
The Sun is another one.
Avoid these two when quoting sources, unless more reputable sources are running the same story; in which case, it would probably be wiser to use the more reputable ones.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mbkennel
Are you considering the albedo change in terms of lower incidence angles, or are you using a normal angle to support your statements?
TheRedneck
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel
Still haven't shown the climate model that predicts the fall of temperature over land. Why is the temperature over land falling?
Isn't CO2 a well mixed gas?
The fact that nowhere else on the planet is a major amount of surface area going from bright white to very dark.
originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel
Now you are a little too smart to be showing me a Land AND Ocean graph and pretend its just land. So you are deliberately trying to use trickery here.
Temperature is falling over land.
Ocean will take longer because it retains more heat.
It looks like CO2 isn't even a factor hear. Its all natural.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: mbkennel
The fact that nowhere else on the planet is a major amount of surface area going from bright white to very dark.
OK, that's sort of an answer. You're considering albedo change from a normal angle. That's a false assumption.
The incidence angle near the poles is very acute, nowhere near normal. That's actually the reason it's so cold there, since solar energy is spread over an area rougly equal to the normal incidence spread divided by the sine of the actual incidence angle. At low incidence angles, water becomes 100% reflective due to the refractive index. Thus, at these low incidence angles, there is no albedo change.
In Summer, is the arctic ice bright or dark from space?
The scientists who model this for a living know about all the physics.
Would it help if I used big words?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
The water is dark because it is not reflecting light in random directions. Instead, it has an increased albedo at incidence angles greater than the refractive index and acts as a directional mirror at angles below the refractive index. Have you ever seen the sun reflecting off a body of water as it sets? It's the same thing. The light is hitting the water at an acute angle and it is being reflected, not absorbed, in a highly directional fashion.
If a space observer were looking in the right place, the water would appear to be brighter than the ice.
The scientists who model this for a living know about all the physics.
So do engineers...