[Five companies] that were claimed to be the largest sources of greenhouse gases — four electric power companies and the Tennessee Valley Authority — were sued by eight states, New York City, and three land conservation groups...When it comes to carbon dioxide, we're all a damned nuisance.
Calling the potential impact of the nuisance theory “staggering,” the companies’ petition said that virtually every entity and industry in the world can be found to be partly responsible for some emissions of carbon dioxide, so they are potentially liable to be sued in climate changed nuisance lawsuits.
December 6, 2010
The Supreme Court takes a global warming case....
... with Justice Sonia Sotomayor recusing herself. American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut involves the use of a common law theory of nuisance:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
298 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 298 of 298@Roger J
I remember seeing a graph based on ice core samples which showed all but the last few thousand years as a roller coaster of temps. The last few thousand have been remarkably steady by comparison.
Oh man, so much ignorance displayed by the hoaxers, so little time. Gotta go, but if someone can pull up a link showing the Egg Harbor, WI NOAA clusterfuck stat that was included in Global Temp data, I'd appreciate it.
Gotta go for now.
Palin for 200!
You are beyond hope.
I am beyond change, too. If you want another example of government funded science, look at the hysteria about the organism that uses arsenic instead of phosphate in its DNA. The letters are flying to Science from microbiologists all over the world calling BS on that paper.
More government science.
"4. New emails from James Hansen and Reto Ruedy (download PDF here) show that NASA’s temperature data was doubted within NASA itself,"
Scientists are always doubting our own data. It's out job.
...and was not independent of CRU’s embattled data, as has been claimed."
Now, that's a problem.
"Little AlphaLiberal was probably scared to death of killer glaciers back then."
Haha good one.
"Our", not "out".
It was so cold that Lance Rentzel could only wave his weenie once after the game. He caught a young boy in the parking garage and said
"Hey kid, look over here!"
The poor child was traumatized for many years but he later grew up to be a well respected member of the community making in excess of six figures. He even took the name of the structure as his nom-de-plume.
But for ever after he assosciated the cold with being a dick so to speak.
That is why he believes in the religion of global warming.
Scott--one suspects that the temperature of our home planet has varied substatially over the past 4 billion years or so--my point was of course that without some standard reference it is difficult to make judgments about variation from a mean (the "ideal" steady state temperature of the globe). The last several thousand years are basically inconsequential from a statistical standpoint.
Point 2 -- Increases in atmosphere CO2 seem to be more a result of warming than a cause. Al Gore's famous PowerPoint slide shows warm peaks leading CO2 peaks, a truth he conveniently overlooks. The future cannot cause the past.
This actually makes a lot of sense: It is well known that cold water can hold more gas in solution than warm water. If the oceans warm-up a bit, they loose the ability to hold CO2 and gas it out.
MadisonMan wrote:
Palin for 200!
Is that 200 AD or BCE? 200 AD would be cool. Sarah could’ve shown those Yellow Scarves how to really kick some Han butt.
because a warmer atmosphere, and oceans, mean more water in the air.
And more water in the air means more cloud cover, and more cloud cover means a cooler atmosphere. Do you really not know this, or are you simply pretending this fact doesn't exist out of convenience?
AlphaLiberal said...
Conservatives:
How many of you deny the very existence of the greenhouse effect, itself, and the role of CO2 in that greenhouse effect?
Hey stupid, I don't deny a greenhouse effect actually exists, but that is the inherent nature of having a fucking atmosphere. Further, you continually lie when you claim that the role of CO2 is to blame since CO2 only comprises .036% of the atmosphere as a gas. Why aren't you crying about the greatest threat in the AGW crisis, water vapor.
You still lie and you still flail. I'm getting close to finding out who you are, you know and I will expose you.
The simple fact that the glaciers melted 15-20,000 years ago without human intervention should show us that we don't know jack shit about the environment. Will it get warmer? Maybe. Will it get colder? Maybe. The thought that the earth will stay at what we know as normal, isn't normal at all. This is a unique time, but only a small, small period of time since the creation of the earth.
THEN WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
dbp said...
If the oceans warm-up a bit, they loose the ability to hold CO2 and gas it out.
Did you totally neglect or forget about something called water evaporation?
AlphaLiberal said...
We're running out of time to act but our policy is dictated by an unholy marriage of the powerfully wealthy and the ignorant.
We're fucked.
So which one are you, wealthy or ignorant. If AGW means we are fucked, then watching you go first will be all worth it. Oh hey, AlphaLiar, can you tell me what the ideal temperature of the surface of earth should be to satisfy your chicken little syndrome?
AllenS--I know Jack Shit--he was a friend of mine--his grandfather was Jack Daniels--a little known fact in TN history.
It was Mr Daniels that funded the Swede's invention of the hole in the toilet seat which led, in turn, the creation of the phrase "shit happens."
I'm getting close to finding out who you are, you know and I will expose you.
If you do find out, please let me know. I'd like to add AlphaL to my Kwanza card list.
And more water in the air means more cloud cover, and more cloud cover means a cooler atmosphere.
It's not that simple. If you have more high clouds -- cirrus -- then you can continue to absorb energy but block outgoing. Cirrus clouds' ice crystals don't reflect much incoming radiation but they will absorb outgoing. You can have a net warming effect. If you have more low clouds, those clouds reflect more incoming energy and you have a net cooling effect.
Where that extra vapor ends up in the atmosphere is important.
AlphaLiberal said...
which include criminal theft of emails.
So are you going to claim that the emails were doctored? If you are, then you would be lying again since the authors of those emails do not deny they wrote them. Does your stupidity have no bounds? You are truly one of the dumbest people I've ever encountered. Just brilliantly, class A stupid.
AlphaLiberal said...
CO2 is a chief gas causing the greenhouse effect.
No it isn't.
Add more CO2, which we do by millions of tons per year, and warming increases rapidly, especially in comparison to the historical record.
Really? How much more in terms of percentage, when the total of atmospheric percentage of CO2 is still .036%? Do you just make shit up as you go along? Now you've moved into the stunningly stupid catergory.
(Deleted and re-posted due to some confusing typos)
Michael wrote: If you want another example of government funded science, look at the hysteria about the organism that uses arsenic instead of phosphate in its DNA.
Gawd, isn't true. NASA just isn't the agency it was back in the heyday of Apollo. There are just too many fuck-ups on their science staff (James Hanson is just the most visible) For some reason that must border on a stupid hunger for public acclaim NASA has acquired a notoriety for this kind of end run around the excepted process of peer review. Just think what an embarrassment that Allan Hills 84001 ficasco has proved to have been. If NASA was run like a respected industrial or academic laboratory these jokers would be "escorted from the building."
The only redeeming factor we can take away from the AH84001 incident is the spectacle of Bill Clinton, shameless self-promoter that he is, jumping out in front of David McKay's publication to claim the limelight. What an ass he was (is)
I didn't know that Roger. But then, I don't know Jack Shit.
Okay...what did I miss? I read the releases about the arsenic bacteria found and that's pretty much it. Did it get debunked quickly?
Did you totally neglect or forget about something called water evaporation?
No. My observation related to the observation that while temp and [CO2] are correlated, increases in [CO2] lag temperature increases and not the other way around.
I quoted what Quaestor wrote, in order to make that clear.
Wins, what garage? Is he running for something? Grand Poobah of Global Warming? House with the most elegant bathrooms, over the number of eight?
WV: driers
It's not that simple.
I wasn't the one asserting a simple cause-effect.
All of this AGW talk has me wondering how long I'm going to let my car run to warm up in the next few minutes. It's 28 outside (that's a warm trend, up from 19 this afternoon...maybe AL is right).
I know that. It is the innocent people who will suffer as a result that I am concerned with. Future generations, especially
These are fine sentiments especially in regard for the possible harm to future generations. I wonder if the same sentiment holds for the crushing federal and state debt we're saddling them with. I guessing, not so much.
All of this AGW talk has me wondering how long I'm going to let my car run to warm up in the next few minutes. It's 28 outside (that's a warm trend, up from 19 this afternoon...maybe AL is right).
Exactly. If you graph those two points and extrapolate, you'll find that it'll be 228F by next Tuesday.
That's how climate science works.
That's how climate science works.
Exactly. Although, between just you and me, I drew those two points on a piece of highly variant paper. One of the points was closer to outlet than the other and thus a tad warmer. Please delete any emails regarding this location. Please have everyone else on your team do likewise.
alphaLiberal wrote:
Add more CO2, which we do by millions of tons per year, and warming increases rapidly, especially in comparison to the historical record.
And almost all of those millions of tons get sequestered in plant tissue. And warming does not "increase rapidly," in fact it hardly increases at all, this observed fact by itself is fatal to AGW theory.
"In comparison to the historical record" Ha! Michael Mann himself (the perp behind the infamous "hockey stick graph" fraud) has been forced to admit the reality of the Medieval Warm Period. Which in case you haven't heard about it (it would be typical of your mindset not to read actual scientific publications) was a time around 800 AD to 1200 AD which was markedly warmer than today and had markedly less atmospheric CO2. This observed fact is also fatal to AGW theory.
AGW theory, it can't account for the past, can't account for the present, can't predict the future. It's DEAD DEAD DEAD. Get yourself another schtick, AlphaTard.
Marshal --
"AL's vision is the rapture for atheists. There always has to be something threatening our very existence."
Piss off, chum. I'm hard core atheist and am hard core in my belief that AGW is fraud.
Here's a strong data point for AGW:
Glacier melt
If the planet was not slowly warming, then why would these century(s) old glacier's melting rate be increasing with such dramatic affect?
5 stunning before and after melting glaciers
Yes, it probably has happened 1000 times before. All of the global warming stuff we hear about has probably happened everywhere in different forms, it's "normal".
BUT, has it ever happened so fast? Likely not. The issue is human activity is accelerating this, faster than ever before. We're shooting ourselves in the foot. Sure cars and television are cool, but there's a price. Anyone who doesn't believe what I just stated is likely moronic hick, plain and simple.
We're shooting ourselves in the foot.
Ditto, mantis guy. BTW, AlphaLiberal is a believer.
Piss off, chum. I'm hard core atheist and am hard core in my belief that AGW is fraud.
Same here. Which is why it's obvious to me that ignorant, superstitious fools like AL are in a religious thrall. It's easy to spot. Walking down the aisle, swinging the incense in the cathedral of the First Church of AGW, moaning, "CO2! CO2!"
Chef Mojo: I think you are right, but also I recall you are a priest in the liberal religion subset of organic and local foods, the communion of the rich and green and most modern served up deliciously and expensively!!
I wasn't the one asserting a simple cause-effect.
I'm only trying to help you better understand something.
Is Cedar Lake fabulous?
"BUT, has it ever happened so fast? Likely not."
"Likely not"? Says who? Determined how?
Alex, there are other explanations for "melting" glaciers. Actually one should say a glacier is advancing or retreating. They always move (or more specifically flow) due to gravity, just like a river. A glacier advances when snowfall rate at the head exceeds flow rate at the foot. Similarly, when flow exceeded snow accumulation the glacier retreats. Thus a "melting" glacier may indicate drought conditions, not necessarily warming.
Natural climate change causes
It seems based on this website, most of any purported warming is not human caused at all. So this hysteria by the left to "do something" about is simply another Trojan horse to kill capitalism.
Much of the AGW claim is based on the time frame looked at. When you step back and look at climate over a longer period, you don't see anything unusual about our current temperatures and would be alarmed if they were not rising since they seem to pretty regularly.
Look at this graph of temperature data from Antarctic ice cores over the last 450,000 years. We are currently at a regularly occurring peak.
Vostok Ice core temp. graph
"Is Cedar Lake fabulous?"
It's got AllenS. What more could you want?
Actually we are not at the peak, but already past it.
Lincolntf asked: ""Likely not"? Says who? Determined how?"
But remember Lincoln - "Anyone who doesn't believe what I just stated is likely moronic hick, plain and simple."
So because you don't "believe" a vaguely worded speculative statement that you could drive a truck through, you're the idiot.
"Look at this graph of temperature data from Antarctic ice cores over the last 450,000 years. We are currently at a regularly occurring peak.
Vostok Ice core temp. graph"
That's not a hockey stick. It's a heart beat!
Titus wrote: Is Cedar Lake fabulous?
Yes. It exists only in folklore, like your sense of humor.
wv: skinatio - a whole body blowjob. I bet that floats your boat, eh Titus?
Guess who said this?
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
--Phil Jones
I just pinched a loaf that look a little like an iceberg.
It was kind of hot.
When I am ready to pinch my loaf from my ass I call it "clipping".
Where do you go in Cedar Lake for the finest in Friday NIght Fish Fry at a divine Supper Club?
Males have a median income of 30,000/annual an females 19,500/annual.
Dear Lord. How sad. But maybe fabulous?
On the subject of peaks and valleys, I would like to pass on that Gallup today has Presidential approval ratings: Bush = 47%, Obama = 46%
Obama remains way ahead on golf outings though.
"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right," (Phil Jones)
That is seriously mixed up.
@Michael:
Chef Mojo: I think you are right, but also I recall you are a priest in the liberal religion subset of organic and local foods, the communion of the rich and green and most modern served up deliciously and expensively!!
Heh. Well, there are priests and then there are followers. As long as the followers keep the offerings coming, I'm happy to - shall we say? - indulge them.
Al Gore is a High Priest. Alpha Liberal is a follower. Gore ends up fat and rich, and Alpha ends up blubbering in a fetal position when his belief system comes crashing down around his ears.
Chef Mojo: I am on my way to Charlottesville at the earliest opportunity!! Well said by an honest man.
Are there cute log homes on out of the way lakes that allow rare clumbers for a nominal fee around Cedar Lake? Perhaps a tavern/supper club walking distance or as a part of the log cabin complex? A plus would be if white tail deer came right up to the cabin door looking for a kernel of corn. And electric blankets.
That would definitely titillate me.
"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right,"
(Phil Jones)
Well, the advocates are certainly doing their part by having the largest carbon footprints on the globe, from Cancun to Amsterdam, and every massage parlor in between. Wohoo! Lets' party like it's 1999!
Al Gore is a High Priest. Alpha Liberal is a follower.
The relationship is more priest/altar boy. And AlphaLiberal, like many others of his ilk, is getting the full priest/altar boy treatment from Father Manbearpig right now, if you know what I mean.
c3 wrote:
1) there is growing scientific consensus of an increase in global average temperature
2) CO2 could be a cause but the data is conflictual and our ability to test the hypothesis via an experimental design is limited
3) In the absence of clear, settled science dramatic policy change that will cause incredible economic upheaval is dangerous at best
Point 1 -- Probably NOT true.
Thanks for the link. My statement was based on my gestalt of the coverage. I guess I'd ask:
1)Is there some running tally out there of all climate scientists (i.e. some polling data) regarding their belief in the theory regarding global warming? (Note I didn't mention cause)
2) Are you assuming "growing consensus" implies "correctness"? As a physician I've certainly seen many assumed truths/general consensus/standards of care to come and again as the science changed. So I don't assume "growing consensus" means truth
The Vostok cores would seem to indicate that Earth, left to its natural devices is usually colder than it currently is.
I doubt the role of CO2 in warming is much more than miniscule but why take a chance on another ice-age? I say, let's get that carbon out of the ground and into the air, where it might do us some good!
Olig: I'm hard core atheist and am hard core in my belief that AGW is fraud.
Assuming you are somewhat of an expert on atheism, maybe you can explain to me why so many "atheists" wind up worshipping False Gods like AGW, Socialism, the State, Obama, Che, etc.
I'm not hostile to your choice to be free FROM religion, I'm just genuinely curious - do you see these types to be as prevalent as I do, and do real athiests like yourself have a name for them?
Right now it is colder than a witches tit out here in Wisconsin.
Fucking cold.
growing scientific consensus of an increase in
I think you will want to avoid terms like "scientific consensus" and "science is settled". They carry too much baggage now, having become synonyms for "Wolf!"
And AlphaLiberal, like many others of his ilk, is getting the full priest/altar boy treatment from Father Manbearpig right now, if you know what I mean.
I think Alpha is taxed trying to keep up his commitment & consistency in a post-CRU-hack world. Thats why he gets so much *more* irrational whenever this comes up.
More please. I want to see his head explode again.
c3:
I'd say that given the questionable nature of the data the so-called consensus is decaying rather than growing, the consensus was always composed of a large an assortment of professionals with too many non-scientists and scientists without specific credentials in the field. Actually to distinguish "predictive climate science" as a field is a bit of a stretch. It more of an artifact of computer modeling than a science. The people who most loudly pontificate on the subject don't understand the algorithms used in the models they feed their data into. This was revealed by the Climate-gate documents.
With respects to the late Dr. Woodward, AGW adherents are thinking "zebras!" when what they're hearing may be hoofbeats, thunder, or intestinal gas.
@ garage --
I'm sure some people have pointed this out (haven't finished reading yet) but ha ha!
You did not actually READ AllenS's list did you?
What is weird here is that AL went home better than 100 posts ago, no one has come to pick up the torch he dropped, and the rest of us are still piling on.
"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right,"
(Phil Jones)
"[W]henever we propose a solution to a problem, we ought to try as hard as we can to overthrow our solution, rather than defend it. Few of us, unfortunately, practise [sic] this precept; but other people, fortunately, will supply the criticism for us if we fail to supply it ourselves." Karl Popper
OK. More pile on.
Link from over at Instapundit an hour or so ago:
What we can learn from 120 years of climate catastrophe reporting
Robert Kaplan argues for MORE American empire
He makes a good case, but I think the results of the blowback from the last 100 years of empire have made the American people hesitant of any future entanglements. Also 90% of 18-29 demographic are solidly anti-empire.
garage mahal said...
THEN WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF ALGORE WINS!
Hopefully just you.
Titus said...
Males have a median income of 30,000/annual an females 19,500/annual.
Dear Lord. How sad. But maybe fabulous?
You should sue. You aren't getting enough money.
@Alex; "Also 90% of 18-29 demographic are solidly anti-empire."
I would doubt if 10 percent of that 90 percent would know what the concept of empire was let alone be for or against it.
And the American "empire" is composed of what holdings seized over the last 100 years?
Ok, more piling on:
1. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
2. Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
3. I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.
4. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
5. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
6. The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
7. “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again"
8. “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”
Added to the fact there was a systematic refusal to release their data. No, no fraud there.
Sooooo much has been invested by the alarmists in their (probable) fantasy. They will NEVER admit that they have been duped. Think of all the Priuses and re-usable shopping bags and other useless non-sense they have invested in during the last two decades.
Fer chris sakes, I saw a couple of dozen paper hole punches in the recycling bin today. Really? REALLY? They will never admit to their foolishness, not even to themselves. Because to do so would force them to admit that their religion substitute is false.
To you true believers: What if you are wrong? would you ever admit it?
If you say yes, think again.
Question by AlphaLiberal:
"How many of you deny the very existence of the greenhouse effect, itself, and the role of CO2 in that greenhouse effect? Experience has shown that many conservatives think the greenhouse effect is false. We've seen that here many times."
Answer:
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist."
Citation to a Peer Reviewed Article that hasn't been refuted.
turing word:asiontsa
Noun, commenter who shows his ass often. See, e.g. AlphaLiberal
"The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist."
Citation to a Peer Reviewed Article that hasn't been refuted.
This answers AlphaLiberal's whines above.
Citation to a Peer Reviewed Article that hasn't been refuted.
Not all papers that have bad premises have been refuted. Some are just ignored.
I haven't read the article you cite -- it costs money -- but the abstract makes me think someone got their undies in a bundle because the atmosphere doesn't act like a Greenhouse and went all pedantic. If the library carries it, maybe I'll read through it later.
There are free versions of the paper available. It's called the Interwebs for a reason, Madison Man.
And the fact that you would judge an article written by physicists for physicists without reading it as some sort of pedantic snit says a lot more about you than the authors of the paper.
As an aside, please note that when a paper says the Greenhouse Theory violates the Second LAW of Thermodynamics, it means the "theory" is not a "theory". It means the "theory" is so much horse shit.
says a lot more about you than the authors of the paper.
The most important thing it says about me is that I'm a big cynic about what I read in an abstract.
The interesting stuff is always in the details within the paper.
Having actually read the paper I'll wait here for you to edu-mu-cate yourself about science-y stuff. Then you can pretend to need to go to a library to find what is available for free online. Then you can ignore the need to understand why the heretics have a point. And your religious views on GlowBall Warmening can remain unchallenged.
So you'll pretend there's not a peer-reviewed journal by a couple of physicists who say the Second Law of Thermodynamics holds true, even now, despite what Al Gore said?
Um, the "Religious" views I have -- whatever that means -- on Global Warming are based on data. For example, there was an interesting article in the local paper on lake ice in Madison today, and how in the 1800s it was a 4-month-long phenomena whereas now it's a 3-month-long phenomena.
As a scientist, I look at that and wonder why. A warmer climate is a possible answer.
Good Lord. That article is 92 pp long! But it's sitting on my computer now. I'll probably not print it out and read it at the two swim meets I'll be at this weekend, which was my original plan.
Plan B: Read in between compiles.
A couple comments.
Tone: The article seems axe-grindy for me. Calling a figure obscene? Throwing down the Scientific Misconduct card? Is this normal for Physics journal articles? (It certainly isn't for Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology).
Every meteorology instructor I know, including yours truly, will caveat a description of the Greenhouse Effect with a note that it's not an ideal representation of the atmosphere. But for a beginning course, it's workable. My interpretation of a greenhouse is that it has a physical barrier that slows convective heat loss. You don't have that barrier in the atmosphere. However, I will argue that it is analogous as both the atmosphere and the greenhouse glass slow heat loss, albeit in totally different ways.
This paper seems to ignore water vapor for the most part, which surprised me.
By the way -- are you sure that paper is serious? It's odd to read about dihydrogen monoxide in a paper rather than water.
But there are lots of things that struck me as lousy german->English translations. Maybe that's just another one.
So you're sticking with the "science" that assumes things which cannot be true. Great.
Perhaps you should stick with "Nu-uh. I can't hear you."
So you're sticking with the "science" that assumes things which cannot be true.
Be careful what you assume.
I will say -- I was right in my assumption based on the abstract that the paper was an exercise in pedantry. For example, in the somewhat lengthy discussion of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, I was waiting for them to mention if the assumptions he was making are necessarily always invalid in the atmosphere. Atmospheric dynamicists use the quasi-geostrophic assumption all the time, even though the assumptions underlying q-g flow are almost never valid. (Non-accelerating flow? Please). Nevertheless, seemingly crude approximations can give you a lot of information.
A problem I have with the paper -- indeed, with many theoretical papers -- is that observations are pretty much thrown aside. For example, two evenings identical in all respects but for the water vapor content in the column of air. Why is the low temperature in the dryer air invariably cooler than in the moister air? It's not because of increased absorption of terrestrial radiation by water vapor. And subsequent downwelling radiation? Not according to that paper. (Indeed, the authors suggest that downwelling radiation does not occur).
I'm still wondering if the authors are serious.
Oh, and P.S.: Here.
So when the physicists argue there is no method for determining a global average temperature, I must assume you find that simple pedantry.
Or else you will show me how such an average temperature could be calculated.
Thanks in advance.
Or else you will show me how such an average temperature could be calculated.
Typically it is computed while assuming that the amount of incoming radiation is balanced by that leaving the Earth. This is easiest if you assume no atmosphere, but you can do it with an atmosphere as well, given some assumptions. First-year grad students do this all the time if they are foolish enough to take a Radiation Class.
The amount of radiation striking the Earth is pretty easy to compute, as the solar constant -- if you want to call it that -- is pretty well known, and the cross-sectional area of the Earth is known.
Practically speaking, when an atmosphere is included, an average temperature doesn't tell you very much.
Post a Comment