Recent content by Genava

Did you read the chapter 7 from the IPCC report AR6 - WG1? https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter07.pdf CarbonBrief provided a good summary of the concepts and definitions used by the IPCC...

I don't think the word ground should be taken too literally because the way we define the global temperature is with the "surface temperature" in meteorology, which is actually the very first layer of air close the ground. Finally the backradiation is not a process from the air to the surface...

I think you are right. It does have an effect on the convection but not really on the temperature gradient (or the lapse rate). The expected changes I have seen in the literature are due to the role of humidity and moist air motions. Not the greenhouse effect directly. Example: Even by looking...

Temperature is a thermodynamic property of the atmosphere. So indirectly it is related to the greenhouse gases. The simple fact that the convection is assumed as adiabatic is due to the role of the greenhouse effect, making the lower troposphere mostly opaque to IR and reducing the loss of...

Historically, the "Greenhouse Effect" is a simple thing emerging from a few observations and to explain divergences from an intuitive model that the Earth's temperature is simply dependent on the Sun. From Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, from IPCC 2007 report, WG1 I think it...

The paper seems more about proving Mars was in a reduced state than proving there was the equivalent of great oxidation event. As they noted, the surface of Mars is quite oxidized now, probably by photo-oxidation over billion of years.

That's quite a large topic due to the different models regularly used for different purposes (climate modelling is a very wide field, far beyond global warming issue). Krauss' book is indeed a good one, I also suggest this one to start but it won't satisfy all your needs : Farmer, G. T., & Cook...

Archaeologists are already pointing out large over interpretation on their argument that this reversal could have caused Neanderthal extinction. On the climate modelling side, their use of SOCOL-MPIOM is interesting. But it is worrying they found such big effect from increasing Brewer-Dobson...

You mean Toulouse? If it is a single reading, it is plausible. Normally you get a better estimation with multiples readings over a longer period of time. There is a bit more details here, in this article about comparing dataset and methodologies: << Computation of the altimetry-based GMSL...

It is not always the case, see the quick acceptance of plate tectonics in the 1950s with paleomagnetism studies. The only reason for a rejection of plate tectonics before was mostly due to the attitude and the inability of Alfred Wegener to defend his theory. Climate change had the same history...

From NOAA page about Global Warming and Hurricanes. An Overview of Current Research Results: In January, NASA made a claim based on one of its study: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ And I remember CarbonBrief made...

The current definition of the kingdom Plantae (aka the Plants) excludes the algae and the fungi, but includes the mosses. Fungi and algae (Chromista) were probably among the first eukaryotes and very probably the first to colonize the lands. But mosses are also good candidates. I think that now...

I think I understand what he did. He took the age of the oldest zircon, because they are already showing the presence of an ocean (thanks to isotopic ratio), as a threshold to reach this temperature. But that's not really the proof that the ocean formed at this moment, this is only our oldest...

A big mistake is that the Earth cooled faster after the Moon formation, in a few million years the temperature dropped for liquid water to be the common state at the surface. According to this review, it took 10 million years to reach a few hundreds °C (but with the massive atmospheric pressure...

The reference is this paper: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26186540?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Which is also quoted by this one: https://journals.ametsoc.org/jas/article/54/4/498/24407 And this one: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1477-8696.2001.tb06577.x Clearly...