Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Heissonear" data-source="post: 66576761" data-attributes="member: 298614"><p>.</p><p>Not that I've absorbed all of the content of the Dorland et al. rebuttal, but Miskolczi presents the long timescale equilibrium of the flux components. In this case the rebuttal misrepresents his data, true? Clouds are transient and with time shifts in the energetic equilibrium will be adjusted. By this is the meaning of constant.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Quote from Miskolczi:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Quote from Dorland et al.:</p><p>"In fact, Miskolski overstates the equality of these two terms. Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) and Van Dorland (1999) <strong>find differences of 25 Wm-2 (over 5%) if clouds are accounted; </strong>Van Dorland (1999) additionally shows that clouds (globally averaged) increase both terms, Aa and Ed, almost equally. Therefore, the difference between Aa and Ed in the aforementioned cloudy case also applies to the clear sky case of Miskolczi."</p><p></p><p>The clouds effect "globally averaged" is mismatched since transient to the primary flux factors. True?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Heissonear, post: 66576761, member: 298614"] . Not that I've absorbed all of the content of the Dorland et al. rebuttal, but Miskolczi presents the long timescale equilibrium of the flux components. In this case the rebuttal misrepresents his data, true? Clouds are transient and with time shifts in the energetic equilibrium will be adjusted. By this is the meaning of constant. Quote from Miskolczi: Quote from Dorland et al.: "In fact, Miskolski overstates the equality of these two terms. Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) and Van Dorland (1999) [B]find differences of 25 Wm-2 (over 5%) if clouds are accounted; [/B]Van Dorland (1999) additionally shows that clouds (globally averaged) increase both terms, Aa and Ed, almost equally. Therefore, the difference between Aa and Ed in the aforementioned cloudy case also applies to the clear sky case of Miskolczi." The clouds effect "globally averaged" is mismatched since transient to the primary flux factors. True? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
The Physics Underlying The Greenhouse Gas Effect Of Earths Atmosphere
Top
Bottom