Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Michael Hauber

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1
  1. Reading through the articles carefully clears the confusion. China dramatically increased aerosol pollution up to about 2006 and has decreased since then. And the final article notes that the lunar eclipses since the late 90s have been much clearer than the lunar eclipse in 1992 which was at the height of the Pinatubo eruption. The atmosphere over the last decade is dirtier now than it used to be in general, has been getting clearer again over the last few years, and has not been as dirty as it was during the volcanic eruption in 1992.
  2. I think an increase from 1 event to 10 events is too small a sample size to be meaningful. Consider the possibility that someone could have trawled through hundreds of different locations and time periods to find one that just by chance offers such a comparison. The number of days with more than 25 mm was about 45, and increased to just over 60, and being a larger data set, this does look a little more like it could be a real trend, and not nearly as spectacular as the >40mm case. Of course even for those numbers, if you looked through dozen of locations with purely random variations in
  3. Both the reduction in weight of the ice sheet pressing the rock down, and the reduction in gravity pulling the ocean towards the ice sheet are basic facts of physics that don't need to be proven/disproven. The only question is how strong the effect is. The article doesn't state how great the effect is, and a general rule of thumb I use for the media is that if they leave out an important piece of information, it is usually because that piece of information is boring (eg the effect may be only a 5% reduction and hardly worth mentioning). Either that or they just don't know how strong the eff
  4. I personally find the second statement a lot scarier than the first. I like to think of the methane situation as a bunch of people huddled around a fire struggling for warmth (carbon consumption fuels our society). Someone then points out that the fire is built against a massive gas tank, which could explode (methane could be released abruptly and cause a disaster). A scientist works out some sums and says that with the thickness of the metal, and lack of oxygen supply to the gas tank the fire is quite safe (current calculations on methane suggest a 0.5 degree warming in next century). Th
  5. Standard Co2 theory of feedback: Co2 increases the amount of radiation trapped in the atmosphere. This leads to changes in the climate system, that act to further modify the amount of radiation trapped/received/not reflected by earth, with a net effect that earth has a higher tendency to absorb radiation than can be explained by Co2 alone. The two most important feedback factors are an increase in water vapour (not cloud), which is a greenhouse gas, and a decrease in ice cover. Cloud cover is a third important factor and the IPCC do not know if clouds make things better or worse, and this
×
×
  • Create New...