Last Build Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:12:46 +0000
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:12:46 +0000further for "Generic Commenter" -- from the first page of results on that search
[PDF]Apollo 17 Photograph of Earth with discussion(118K) - ER - NASA https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Apollo_17_View_of_Earth.pdf approximately 40,000 kilometers from Earth, when this picture was taken. Because the ... Notice the thickness of Earth s atmosphere along Earth's limb (the apparent outer edge) in this picture. Why is it so thin? ...NOTE, choose the Tools dropdown and select VERBATIM to have all the search terms used
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 01:06:40 +0000for "Generic commenter" LMGTFY https://www.google.com/search?q=picture+limb+atmosphere+thick+earth
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 23:39:09 +0000@113 Mike, Thanks for that link. You said, "Any chance of a review of this paper about the carbon cycle? Anybody up for that?" I am not really qualified to write a full review on the paper, as I am not a climate science modeler. What I can say is this though. I loved that paper. I don't even necessarily agree with the numbers they used, but the mechanism for adjusting the models by accounting for changes in Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements. When I took my Climate Science course to better communicate with climate scientists I was highly disappointed in the state of the models. There really were no good models I could plug in the recent changes in Ag tech, should they become adopted. They still are not widely adopted, but it is hard to argue for their adoption from the AGW POV, when there were not good models to plug in the data and projections of what could be the result! It was certainly a catch 22. Your link shows a very good improvement! Thanks very much for posting this. Now someone can take my proposal https://www.quora.com/Can-we-reverse-global-warming/answer/Scott-Strough and run a few scenarios. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for a much stronger case being made in the journals for BCCS (biological carbon capture and sequestration) in agriculture. @116 Hank, I was also very happy to see this link too! You quoted, "instead may be due to changes in how long methane remains in the atmosphere after it is emitted." This is another area I found a complete blank space regarding biological oxidation of methane effects of agricultural methods in the models. I was again highly disappointed to see that there wasn't even a mention of the soil methane sink! Even my professor had not even heard of such a thing as agricultural methodology effecting methanotroph activity! This I thought was a huge oversight since of all the CH4 sources and sinks, the biotic sink strength is the most responsive to variation in human activities! I explain that in detail here: https://www.quora.com/How-do-methane-emissions-from-agriculture-compare-to-methane-emissions-from-oil-and-gas Two really great posts Mike and Hank. I guess I am not quite so crazy after all!
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:17:03 +0000David @ 20 Apr 2017 at 3:58 PM Regarding the difference between TMT trends in models and satellite measurements, and same sign trend differences between surface temperatures and satellite measurements; I think that inaccurate cloud parameterizations in the models, and resultant inaccuracies in latent and sensible heat transport, including some related to the increases in intense rainfall (the Eno river near where i live has risen from 150 to 5510 CFS in 12 hours). The observed lapse rate under global warming is larger than predicted by models, although the "missing" hotspot has actually been observed - just smaller than models project. Before you (or Dr Christy or Dr. Happer) celebrate too much about this, y'all should consider lapse rate feedback and the implications for climate sensitivity and subsequent impacts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Lapse_rate
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:59:27 +0000@MA Rodger #33. Under no illusions about the limitations of Callendar, but it seems like a lot of those errors cancel out leaving a graph that wouldn't be too far off from the observations. Lucky perhaps, but I had a chemistry professor who told me that luck comes to those who work hard - Emil Fischer in that case. I think he would agree this is not a testable hypothesis ;-).
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 15:48:08 +0000I've previously posted links to Mike's Science March speech and the one of Bill Nye, somehow they went missing it seems. If someone wants to watch those, click my website link and browse the video uploads.
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 14:39:15 +0000Here is an interesting thought.....2017 could be the 'warmest year on record', and thus in NOAA/GISTEMP the 4th year in a row to come in as 'warmest year on record'. The first three months 0f 2017 have been second warmest on record in NOAA, GISTEMP & BEST data and in all three data sets 2017 has been some distance ahead of third-placed year. (We do await HadCRUT for March.) BEST GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES RANKED BY HOTTEST Jan-to-Mar .. .. .. .Jan-to-Mar .. Annual .... ... Difference 2016.. .. 1.21ºC .. .. 0.97ºC .. .... .. -0.25ºC 2017.. .. 1.07ºC 2010.. .. 0.83ºC .. .. 0.70ºC .. .... .. -0.13ºC 2015.. .. 0.80ºC .. .. 0.82ºC .. .... .. +0.02ºC 2007.. .. 0.77ºC .. .. 0.63ºC .. .... .. -0.14ºC 2002.. .. 0.75ºC .. .. 0.60ºC .. .... .. -0.15ºC 2005.. .. 0.69ºC .. .. 0.67ºC .. .... .. -0.02ºC 2006.. .. 0.67ºC .. .. 0.62ºC .. .... .. -0.05ºC 1998.. .. 0.65ºC .. .. 0.61ºC .. .... .. -0.04ºC 2014.. .. 0.63ºC .. .. 0.69ºC .. .... .. +0.06ºC Note that the BEST Jan-Mar 2017 anomaly exceeds all BEST annual anomalies and that most of these years in the table are El Nino year (that is an El Nino thro' the preceeding winter.) This is mirrored in NOAA/GISTEMP and it is only in strong El Nino years that we see the eventual annual anomaly dropping from the Jan-Mar value by an amount that would see 2017 bested for hottest year by 2016. In 2015 & 2014, both non-El Nino years, we actually see an increase between the Jan-Mar value and the annual value. The same finding is essentially seen in NOAA/GISTEMP. So will the temperature for 2017 be substantially below the 2017 Jan-Mar value? Or will it maintain these "scorchyisimo!!!" levels and deliver another hottest year? End-of-year temperatures tend to be boosted a little by a coming El Nino and recent forecasts for ENSO are presently showing an El Nino as the likely state through the autumn/winter. So do not be surprised if 2017 ends up as another 'warmest year on record'.
Tue, 25 Apr 2017 05:04:29 +0000More Clovis Comet evidence? https://m.phys.org/news/2017-04-ancient-stone-pillars-clues-comet.html Enigmatic, I opine.
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 20:51:00 +0000Should RealClimate have a readily discoverable photo that shows the thickness of earth's atmosphere? I am having trouble finding it.
Mon, 24 Apr 2017 16:25:10 +0000Hat tip to Soylent News: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2017-108&rn=news.xml&rst=6814 A new NASA- and Department of Energy-funded study finds that recent increases in global methane levels observed since 2007 are not necessarily due to increasing emissions, but instead may be due to changes in how long methane remains in the atmosphere after it is emitted. The second most important human-produced greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, methane is colorless, odorless and can be hard to track. The gas has a wide range of sources, from decomposing biological material to leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the early 2000s, atmospheric scientists studying methane found that its global concentration -- which had increased for decades, driven by methane emissions from fossil fuels and agriculture -- leveled off as the sources of methane reached a balance with its destruction mechanisms. The methane levels remained stable for a few years, then unexpectedly started rising again in 2007, a trend that is still continuing. Previous studies of the renewed increase have focused on high-latitude wetlands or fossil fuels, Asian agricultural growth, or tropical wetlands as potential sources of the increased emissions. But in a study published today in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Caltech in Pasadena, California; and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, also in Pasadena, suggest that methane emissions might not have increased dramatically in 2007 after all. Ambiguity in the causes for decadal trends in atmospheric methane and hydroxyl (open, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1616020114) (DX) Additional reading: http://www.caltech.edu/news/detergent-molecules-may-be-driving-fluctuations-atmospheric-methane-concentrations-54742 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Original Submission Discuss this story at: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=17/04/22/2341257 Links: 0. https://soylentnews.org/~takyon/ 1. https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2017-108&rn=news.xml&rst=6814 2. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/04/11/1616020114.full 3. https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616020114 4. http://www.caltech.edu/news/detergent-molecules-may-be-driving-fluctuations-atmospheric-methane-concentrations-54742 5. https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=19694 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------