Research on changing absorptivity of water, etc, needed?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Research on changing absorptivity of water, etc, needed?

Research on changing absorptivity of water, etc, needed?07-11-2015 23:50
Swayseeker ☆☆☆☆☆ (3)	If ice is melting at the poles and so less radiation is being reflected into the sky will this not decrease the effective sky temperature used to calculate the radiant energy lost by a surface on the ground during the day? Could this decrease surface temperatures of some bodies (depending on emissivities, etc)? Also, temperature change will effect the temperature of the seawater and this could cause different proportions of microscopic sea life to result. The temperature change and different turbidity of the water will change the reflectivity the absorptivity and emissivity of the seawater. Could this significantly affect energy exchange between earth and space? For instance for snow with an effective sky temperature of 230 K I calculate a 13 W/square metre loss in energy, whereas for an effective sky temperature of 250 K I calculate a 48 W/square metre gain in energy. Used absorptivity= 0.28 and emissivity=0.97. Used total solar energy (direct and diffuse) = 300W/square metre. Surface temp of snow 260 K
08-11-2015 14:56
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	I think you will want to consider the amount of ice that is melting; The rate of ice loss from Greenland over the period 1992 to 2010 was 12.9 Gt per year. Or F.all in plumber speak. http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2180.epdf?referrer_access_token=GRtH6G5-EXU55TPY1I-ApNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9PGwIyKjSmktz08GZvRoP37INiMvzLVtRRDIv-MLPDppSJjfYeaMtooULYGxMj6vMyVw0ot_c282R1kchge37mzsWwDUI07sg8zRHptxyPUyHQORNuz5BXnQ96hrNj-zPqO3Ym6qJhSYy1XU6DhT02A5Iego-7XnOdBJJw2mNFRz0V2k9MgixCWG5kRSRfXl9tfTG3t3ArVM_wqJK-_zw&tracking_referrer=news.nationalgeographic.com Antarctica is gaining ice. P.S. How do you sort out a link? Edited on 08-11-2015 14:57
08-11-2015 19:05
Desertphile☆☆☆☆☆ (33)	No, Antarctic is not gaining ice. Over all, on average, it has gained altitude due to increased snow fall. The authors of the study told you conspiracy alarmists to stop claiming Antarctic is gaining ice.
08-11-2015 21:59
Tim the plumber ★★★★☆ (1356)	Desertphile wrote: No, Antarctic is not gaining ice. Over all, on average, it has gained altitude due to increased snow fall. The authors of the study told you conspiracy alarmists to stop claiming Antarctic is gaining ice. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses Fairly easy to understand I think. More mass of ice. Just according to NASA of course.
09-11-2015 23:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Tim the plumber wrote: Desertphile wrote: No, Antarctic is not gaining ice. Over all, on average, it has gained altitude due to increased snow fall. The authors of the study told you conspiracy alarmists to stop claiming Antarctic is gaining ice. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses Fairly easy to understand I think. More mass of ice. Just according to NASA of course. More than just NASA. Ice accumulation has been so great on the continent that older research stations are buried by it. The original South Polar station erected 100 ft radio towers to broadcast to the world their accomplishments and data. That station is buried now, and the towers now stick out of the ground about a foot. They're kind a trip hazard for the personal that work at the present South Polar Station built on top of the old one.

09-11-2015 23:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Desertphile wrote: No, Antarctic is not gaining ice. Over all, on average, it has gained altitude due to increased snow fall. The authors of the study told you conspiracy alarmists to stop claiming Antarctic is gaining ice. Hint: Snow is ice. When it's been on the ground awhile, it hardens as well. It doesn't stay fluffy.
10-11-2015 18:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Into the Night wrote: More than just NASA. Ice accumulation has been so great on the continent that older research stations are buried by it. The original South Polar station erected 100 ft radio towers to broadcast to the world their accomplishments and data. That station is buried now, and the towers now stick out of the ground about a foot. They're kind a trip hazard for the personal that work at the present South Polar Station built on top of the old one. ...and this is what is happening in Greenland. Ice is accumulating. It is obvious. Warmizombies build their lives around a false notion of depleting ice in a world that is apparently gaining ice, and they invest so much of their self identity into it. What kind of denial do you think trafn must be fostering? He wrote a book about the impending end of the world that will transpire once all the ice is melted...and he allowed himself to be conned into thinking the polar ice will soon be gone, not that it is accumulating. Climate Scientist is still on tap to tell us what "accumulating" really means. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-11-2015 21:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: More than just NASA. Ice accumulation has been so great on the continent that older research stations are buried by it. The original South Polar station erected 100 ft radio towers to broadcast to the world their accomplishments and data. That station is buried now, and the towers now stick out of the ground about a foot. They're kind a trip hazard for the personal that work at the present South Polar Station built on top of the old one. ...and this is what is happening in Greenland. Ice is accumulating. It is obvious. Warmizombies build their lives around a false notion of depleting ice in a world that is apparently gaining ice, and they invest so much of their self identity into it. What kind of denial do you think trafn must be fostering? He wrote a book about the impending end of the world that will transpire once all the ice is melted...and he allowed himself to be conned into thinking the polar ice will soon be gone, not that it is accumulating. Climate Scientist is still on tap to tell us what "accumulating" really means. . Quite correct. Similar burials have happened in Greenland. I find it entertaining that there is some magical difference between snow and ice. Not sure about trafn. There are certainly layers upon layers of assumptions there, all stemming from the initial premise of global warming, but his version takes on a unique form of it. Edited on 10-11-2015 21:57
11-11-2015 11:58
Ceist ★★★☆☆ (592)	Congratulations! The Sky Dragon Slayers are using the same argument as Young Earth Creationists who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm Seems that just like the young earthers, Slayers also don't know the difference between a coastal unstable glacier area with high precipitation where snow accumulation is rapid, and stable, low precipitation, inland areas where ice cores are drilled. Sky Dragon Slayers - their faith must be incredibly strong because their evidence is non-existent or piss poor. Edited on 11-11-2015 12:22
11-11-2015 21:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Ceist wrote: Congratulations! The Sky Dragon Slayers are using the same argument as Young Earth Creationists who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old. http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htm Seems that just like the young earthers, Slayers also don't know the difference between a coastal unstable glacier area with high precipitation where snow accumulation is rapid, and stable, low precipitation, inland areas where ice cores are drilled. Sky Dragon Slayers - their faith must be incredibly strong because their evidence is non-existent or piss poor. ?? huh??? Non-sequitur in the least! Edited on 11-11-2015 21:46

Join the debate Research on changing absorptivity of water, etc, needed?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Lake Mead water level is still rising in August, when it is ALWAYS falling. So snow melt is not the	155	16-09-2023 13:46
Scientists say Florida Keys coral reefs are already bleaching as water temperatures hit record highs	14	29-07-2023 20:14
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity	2	13-07-2023 15:50
Training Course on climate change adaptation in a changing environment	35	16-06-2023 15:26
Lake Mead Water Levels Stage A Comeback?	4	31-05-2023 23:03