by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye these past few weeks.
New research verifies that sea level rise is causing #carbon burial rates to increase on some Florida coasts. [link]
Rare ozone hole opens in the Arctic – and its big [link]
Insights from Earth system model initial-condition large ensembles and future prospects, Nature Climate Change rdcu.be/b3i25
Very good article on hurricanes and climate change from perspective of insurance industry. [link]
“No consistent ENSO response to volcanic forcing over the last millennium,” science.sciencemag.org/content/367/64
“Latest Earth System Models predict more global warming than their predecessors” usclivar.org/research-highl
Interesting new paper generates significantly lower climate sensitivity estimates when models are constrained by observational data [link]
Earth’s most biodiverse coral reefs thrive near acidic waters (pH ~6.0) in regions where seafloor vents emit up to 95,000 ppm CO2. Discharge temps reach 55°C. phys.org/news/2020-01-d
Water masses formed off southeastern Greenland may contribute more than previously thought to the variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which strongly influences global climate. [link]
CO2-greening expands Earth’s carbon sink. By 2100 this will offset 17 years (equivalent) of our CO2 emissions, supplanting the effectiveness of Paris accord policies. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11
A century of reduced ENSO variability during the Medieval Climate Anomaly [link]
fracking is unlikely the driver of atmospheric methane rise in the past decade nature.com/articles/s4159
“Evolutionary Traits that Enable Scleractinian Corals to Survive Mass Extinction Events” [link]
The underappreciated influence of the tropics on the ‘jet stream’ |j.mp/3axiCAa
Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances go.nature.com/3ahRUeM
Regional biophysical cooling in Europe from recent land cover changes [link]
Analyzing changes in the complexity of climate in the last 4 decades using MERRA data [link]
Why does the weather stall? New theories explain enigmatic ‘blocks’ in the jet stream [link]
Policy & technologies
Decarbonization by 2070 is achievable [link]
Ted Nordhaus: there are enormous opportunities for climate mitigation and adaptation in Covid response but seizing them will require climate advocates to be a lot more flexible strategically. [link]
Researchers in Iceland demonstrate basalt’s ability to aid in #carboncapture. Their study shows 90% of injected CO2 reacted with basalt to form minerals in just 2 years, suggesting #carbon can be stored long term without leakage worries. #ClimateCrisis buff.ly/3blZ6H4
Coal mines emit more methane than oil-and-gas sector j.mp/39hVDb4
Coronavirus crisis opens new paths toward clean energy [link]
assessing climate change mitigation potential of global soils. It’s big. [link]
Taleb: Ethics of precaution: Individual and systemic risk [link]
Testing sub-optimal climate policies: bde.es/f/webpi/SES/se
Climate adaptation by crop migration [link]
About science and scientists
We can’t tell how bad things really are [link]
Complicated mathematical models are not substitutes for common sense [link]
What’s wrong with the H-index: severe, unintended consequences [link]
Pushing the computational limits of climate simulation [link]
The importance of “I don’t know” [link]
Expertise for dealing with lack of definitive solutions for complex problems includes knowledge to search for partial & temporary solutions, plus skills to find best-possible outcomes. For more see i2insights.org/2020/03/10/exp
Nothing ???
page not found when tried clicking all links provided.
>
It took a while for it to be a Pandemic. I hope I am right and it is well on the downward slope.
I AM RRIGHT ABOUT GLOBAL ICE MAKING and GLOBAL ICE MELTING!
Robert D. Clark
To: clark42@msn.com
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 5:48 PM
Subject: [New post] Week in review – climate science edition
curryja posted: “by Judith Curry A few things that caught my eye these past few weeks. New research verifies that sea level rise is causing #carbon burial rates to increase on some Florida coasts. [link] Rare ozone hole opens in the Arctic – and its big [link”
Re: “No consistent ENSO response to volcanic forcing over the last millennium,” https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6485/1477/tab-pdf”
What they tested was the effect of aerosols created by land volcanic eruptions into the atmosphere. What is proposed is the effect of submarine geothermal heat from all submarine geological activity including submarine volcanism. Please see:
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/07/03/elnino/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/14/atmosphere-bias/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/20/an-atmosphere-bias-part-2/
And not directly responsive to the item but an interesting case of the atmosphere bias recently published in Nature
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/03/antarctica-rainforest/
Chaamjamal:
ALL En Ninos are caused by reduced levels of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, which causes the ENSO area to warm up because of the increased intensity of the solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
https://www.Osf.io/bycj4/
why is the enso localzed?
Chaamjamai:
I really don’t have any answer, but it is a huge area of the Pacific Ocean.that is being warmed up.
ENSO temperature increases are usually related to the settling out of volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions, but also occur whenever anthropogenic emissions of SO2 aerosols are decreased, as most notably happened .in 1997-98, and 2014-2016, due to global Clean Air efforts.
Interesting. Thank you sir.
Idiosyncratic ENSO theories founded on peripheral factors.
Thank you Robert
I was merely pointing out that there is no coherent science behind either of these oddball ideas. No need to thank me.
“new paper generates significantly lower climate sensitivity estimates when models are constrained by observational data[link]”
From the abstract: “several climate models of .. CMIP6 simulate much stronger warming, apparently inconsistent with past assessments. Here, we show that projected future warming is correlated with the simulated warming trend during recent decades across CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, enabling us to constrain future warming based on consistency with the observed warming.”
I welcome the call for a consistency with observations. Might climatology become a scientific discipline, as opposed to a scholastic discipline?
“fracking is unlikely the driver of atmospheric methane rise in the past decade https://nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61035-w”
also fossil fuel production in general
https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/16/beef-and-climate-change/
Methane: the less we know the scarier it gets
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/12/12/methanescare/
One has to be quite uninformed to believe that hydraulic fracturing is causing higher methane emissions. Any emissions are caused by other activities, some of which are associated with the surface equipment used to capture fluids recovered from fractured wells. However, fracturing itself can’t release methane.
Yes sir. Fully agree.
“Although production of shale gas has increased rapidly since 2008, and CH4 emissions associated with this increased production are expected to have increased overall in that timeframe, the simultaneously-observed increase in global atmospheric CH4 is not dominated by emissions from shale gas and shale oil developments.”
Walking and chewing gum at the same time is an underdeveloped skill.
I looked at the data and did not find the necessary correlation.
The correlation is between more pipes, infrastructure and frakked gas flow and more leakage. You don’t have a practical bone in your body.
Sorry about the impractical state of my bones sir.
I’m sorry that you don’t acknowledge the impracticaLity of your claim to not find a correlation.
Agree to disagree?
There really is no need. A vastly expanded industry adds to releases as the study said. You are arguing something that is both trivial and incorrect to defend your indefensible interpretation of this paper with fatuous digression.
The quote from the study was that increases of methane from a large expansion of the industry fracking was expected but that it was not the dominant source of increased methane is the atmosphere. I was content to leave it at that but you were intent on digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Ok
I don’t think so.
I give up
Yet you refuse to admit error.
“Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances https://go.nature.com/3ahRUeM”
Two recent papers connected the ozone depletion scare to the agw scare
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/03/climate-ozone-crisis/
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/27/ozone-mystery/
Decrease of subsurface temperature on the equatorial Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202004.gif
Still very strong galactic radiation.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
https://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/current_files/GCR_effDose_15_km.png
The northern solar dipole has reached its maximum and the 25th solar cycle begins.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20200403_hres.png
‘The importance of “I don’t know” [link]’:
“The way we formalize the distinction between easy and hard problems highlights the idea that part of being a domain expert is not merely knowing the answers to questions, but knowing the limits of what questions are answerable.”
“In order to elicit honest reports from experts, it is necessary that the decision-maker also learns whether the problem is difficult. Indeed, in environments where the expert has even very small policy concerns, difficulty validation alone may be sufficient.”
“…some experts can simply be asked “do you think the evidence about this question is solid” rather than emphasizing what the expert thinks the
truth is. Finding other ways to achieve difficulty validation could be a path to improving communication in politics and organizations more generally.”
A breath of fresh air. Making it happen amid the increasing (it seems to me) clamour for the comfort of (unsupported) certainties, is another thing.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature calculation
Te.earth
So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,30
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.earth is:
Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τe.earth = ( 6.914.170.222,70 )¹∕ ⁴ = 288,36 K
Te.earth = 288,36 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The complete formula produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets’ temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
Mercury……….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth…………..255 K………..288,36 K……..288 K
Moon…………..271 Κ………..221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars…………209,91 K……..213,42 K……..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
@CV: “Earth is a smooth rocky planet”
Your parents and your high school never took you on an outing to the beach? Did you live too far inland?
FYI, 70% of Earth’s surface is water, not rock.
Thank you for your notice: “Earth is a smooth rocky planet”.
I am correcting the sentence: “Earth is a smooth watery and rocky planet”..
70% of Earth’s surface is water and 30% is rock.
Thank you again.
Of course I knew that. I have above the following sentence:
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
What makes you think: “Your parents and your high school never took you on an outing to the beach? Did you live too far inland?”
Thank you again for your help.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Greenhouse gases cause large surface warming and keep the planet habitable. There is both both hypothesis based on quantum mechanics and empirical verification.
“In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.” Isaac Newton
Thank you Robert.
“In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.” Isaac Newton
I agree 100%.
It is said about: “Greenhouse gases warming effect on Earth’s surface”.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
Of course there is some minor warming from the Greenhouse gasses. But it is very small, it is not detectable by the measurements.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
I serve only to point out that there is an established mechanism for maintaining a habitable planet. Leaving little room or need for idiosyncratic hypotheses. Your most welcome.
There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
According to what data?
“Tyndall’s apparatus, consisting of a gas-filled tube sealed with rock salt, to study how different gases interact with infrared radiation. Image from Tyndall’s 1872 book Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat (NY: D. Appleton & Co.)
.
When Tyndall filled the tube with dry air, pure oxygen, or pure nitrogen, he did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube. He tried every gas he could get his hands on, and when he finally added ethylene gas (C2H4) – the gas emitted by fruit when it ripens – he saw that much of the radiation was absorbed between the entrance and exit of the tube. This surprised him. He wrote:
The gas was invisible, nothing was seen in the air, but the needle [of the detector] immediately declared its presence… Those who like myself have been taught to regard transparent gases as almost perfectly diathermanous [permeable to heat], will probably share the astonishment with which I witnessed the foregoing effect. (Tyndall, 1861)”.
When Tyndall filled the tube with dry air, pure oxygen, or pure nitrogen, he did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube.
When Tyndall filled the tube with dry air, …………….., he did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube.
So Tyndall did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube filled with dry air.
The dry air Tyndall filled the tube with had only traces of CO2.
That is why Tyndall did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube.
The dry air has only traces of CO2. The dry air’s CO2 IR absorption is negligible,
It can not be measured, it can not be detected – Tyndall couldn’t.
Te.earth = 288,36 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The Planet’s Effective Temperature Complete formula
Te.complete = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets’ temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
Mercury……….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth…………..255 K………..288,36 K……..288 K
Moon…………..271 Κ………..221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars…………209,91 K……..213,42 K……..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
There are hundreds of thousands of observations – from the surface, aircraft and satellites. The theory and observation of these ‘trace’ atmospheric gases is as strong as it gets.
Your type of idiosyncratic theorizing is sky dragon slaying. It is not worth arguing about. I stopped reading your rote repeats long ago.
Robert,
The Planet’s Effective Temperature Complete formula
Te.complete = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets’ temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
Mercury……….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth…………..255 K………..288,36 K……..288 K
Moon…………..271 Κ………..221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars…………209,91 K……..213,42 K……..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
Robert, the satellites planets mean temperatures measurements are very persistent.
We can not ignore that, it is a scientifically proven fact
Let’s start with abandoning the old incomplete effective temperature formula:
Te. = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Because: The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Incessant rote repetition of your fake science serves no purpose.
🤣 wrong place
Earth / Europa (Jupiter’s moon) satellite measured mean temperatures 288 K and 102 K comparison
All the data below are satellites measurements. All the data below are observations
.
Planet….Earth….Europa
Tsat.mean 288 K….102 K
R…………..1 AU…5,2044 AU
1/R²………1…….0,0369
N………….1……1/3,5512 rot./day
a…………..0,30……0,63
(1-a)………0,70……0,37
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 1 * 1 )¹∕ ⁴ = 1
Europa:
Tsat.mean = 102 K
[ (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = [ 0,0369*(1/3,5512)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴ = 0,4049
Let’s continue
Earth [ (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ /Europa [ (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 1 /0,4049 = 2,4697
Earth (1-a) /Europa (1-a) = 0,70 /0,37 = 1,89189
1,89189 ¹∕ ⁴ = 1,1728
2,4697 * 1,1728 = 2,8965
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.europa = 288 K /102 K = 2,8235
Conclusion:
Everything is all right. Everything is based on observations.
Notice:
We could successfully compare Earth /Europa ( 288 K /102 K ) satellite measured mean temperatures because both Earth and Europa have two identical major features.
Φearth = 0,47 because Earth has a smooth surface and Φeuropa = 0,47 because Europa also has a smooth surface.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*°C, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
Europa is an ice-crust planet without atmosphere, Europa’s surface consists of water ice crust, cp.europa = 1cal/gr*°C.
And
The planet’s rotations per day “N” should be considered in the Te.planet complete formula in the fourth root:
Te.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert,
“The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat.” Joseph Fourier, 1824
It is a 200 years old assumption.
“What Fourier could not do, but Tyndall could, was design and construct apparatus capable of demonstrating and measuring the effect.”
When Tyndall filled the tube with dry air, …………….., he did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube.
So Tyndall did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube filled with dry air.
The dry air Tyndall filled the tube with had only traces of CO2.
That is why Tyndall did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube.
The dry air has only traces of CO2. The dry air’s CO2 IR absorption is negligible,
It can not be measured, it can not be detected – Tyndall couldn’t.
Te.earth = 288,36 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The Planet’s Effective Temperature Complete formula
Te.complete = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets’ temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
……………….formula…………formula…..measured
Mercury……….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth…………..255 K………..288,36 K……..288 K
Moon…………..271 Κ………..221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars…………209,91 K……..213,42 K……..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
“NASA takes it to another level.”
Of course NASA takes it to another level!!!!!!
It is the NASA which did all the planet’s average (mean) temperatures measurements.
It is only due to NASA very precise measurements it became possible the questioning of the old incomplete planet’s effective temperature formula:
Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
which gives very confusing results
Planet…Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
……………….formula…………formula…..measured
Mercury……….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth…………..255 K………..288,36 K……..288 K
Moon…………..271 Κ………..221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars…………209,91 K……..213,42 K……..210 K
And then discovering the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law, from which derives the Planet’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
Te.complete = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
🤣 whoops
Derive phi from theory. It’s just an arbitrary correction factor you threw in. This undercuts everything else you claim.
Phudge factor
David,
“Derive phi from theory. It’s just an arbitrary correction factor you threw in. This undercuts everything else you claim”.
Thank you David, probably I am not very good at explaining, but Φ is not an arbitrary correction factor.
What we had until now was:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
or
Jsw.absorbed = (1 – a)*Jsw.incoming
where
a – is the planet’s average albedo
And this led to the incomplete formula:
Te.incompl. = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
What we have now is the following:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Φ = (1-0,53) = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Φ is the planet’s spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming
And
Jsw.absorbed = Φ* (1-a) * Jsw.incoming
Where
(0,53 + Φ*a) + Φ* (1-a) = 0,53 + Φ*a + Φ – Φ*a =
= 0,53 + Φ = 0,53 + 0,47 = 1
The solar irradiation reflection, when integrated over a planet sunlit hemisphere is:
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming
or
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) *S *π r²
A planet with albedo a = 0
Let’s imagine a planet with albedo less than Mercury’s a = 0,088;
Let’s imagine a planet with albedo a = 0
This planet still reflects:
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*0) *S *π r²
or
Jsw.reflected = 0,53 *S *π r²
Φ = (1-0,53) = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Φ is the planet’s spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
Φ plays an important role in the Planet’s Effective Temperature Complete formula, because only this way we can calculate the
Jsw.absorbed = Φ* (1-a) * Jsw.incoming = Φ (1-a) S
and the final result is
Te.complete = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Thank you David
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Planet Mercury’s Φ = 0,47 Paradigm Confirmation
We have now chosen the planet Mercury for its very low albedo a=0,088 and for its very slow rotation spin N=1/58,646 rotations/day.
The planet Mercury is most suitable for the incomplete effective temperature formula definition – a not rotating planet, or very slow rotating. Also it is a planet where albedo (a = 0,088) plays small role in energy budget.
These (Tmean, R, N, and albedo) planets’ parameters are all satellites measured. These planets’ parameters are all observations.
Planet….Mercury….Moon….Mars
Tsat.mean.340 K….220 K…210 K
R………0,387 AU..1 AU..1,525 AU
1/R²…….6.6769……..1….…0,430
N…..1 /58,646..1 /29,531..0,9747
a………0,088……0,136……0,250
1-a…..0,912……0,864…….0,75
Let’s calculate, for comparison reason, the Planet Mercury’s effective temperature with the old incomplete formula:
Te.incomplete.mercury = [ (1-a) So (1/R²) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
We have
(1-a) = 0,912
1/R² = 6,6769
So = 1.362 W/m² – it is the Solar constant ( the solar flux on the top of Earth’s atmosphere )
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Te.incomplete.mercury = [ 0,912* 1.362 W/m² * 6,6769 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.incomplete.mercury = ( 36.568.215.492,06 )¹∕ ⁴ = 437,296 K
Te.incomplete.mercury = 437,296 K
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K – the satellite measured Mercury’s mean temperature
Amazing, isn’t it? Why there is such a big difference between the measured Mercury’s mean temperature, Tmean = 340 K, which is the correct, ( I have not any doubt about the preciseness of satellites planets’ temperatures measurements ) and the Mercury’s Te by the effective temperature incomplete formula calculation Te = 437 K?
Let’s put these two temperatures together:
Te.incomplete.mercury = 437 K
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Very big difference, nearly 100°C higher!
But why the incomplete effective temperature formula gives such a wrongly higher result?
The answer is simple – it happens because the incomplete formula assumes planet absorbing solar energy as a disk and not as a sphere.
We know now that even a planet with a zero albedo reflects 0,53*S of the incident solar irradiation.
Imagine a completely black planet; imagine a completely invisible planet, a planet with a zero albedo.
This planet will still reflect 53 % of the incident on its surface solar irradiation.
The satellites measurements have confirmed it.
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Te.incomplete.mercury = 437 K
Very big difference, nearly 100°C higher!
The Planet Mercury’s Φ = 0,47 Paradigm has confirmed it:
Φ = 1 – 0,53 = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Φ – is the dimensionless planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Φ – is the dimensionless planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor”
Hilarious.
Robert, it is not Hilarious
We know now that even a planet with a zero albedo reflects 0,53*S of the incident solar irradiation.
Imagine a completely black planet; imagine a completely invisible planet, a planet with a zero albedo.
This planet will still reflect 53 % of the incident on its surface solar irradiation.
The satellites measurements have confirmed it.
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Te.incomplete.mercury = 437 K
Very big difference, nearly 100°C higher!
The Planet Mercury’s Φ = 0,47 Paradigm has confirmed it:
Φ = 1 – 0,53 = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Φ – is the dimensionless planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor
Robert, it is not Hilarious.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Such a fundamental error and it is far from the only one.
Finally you agreed with the Φ factor rightness.
Thank you Robert, I knew you would..
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
You presume to reinvent atmospheric physics on the basis of negligible training and experience. Arrogant to the point of mad eccentricity.
Keep him busy, Cristos. You are doing the blog a great service.
The more we compare the planets’ surface temperatures, the more we understand the planets’ surface warming phenomenon.
Thank you Don, it is a relieve to receive an encouragement.
Thank you Robert, I like your responses, you make me search for the new approaches, you make me develop the theory, you make me better.
I know you are doing so for a good purpose. The purpose is to better understand the ways of the Nature.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Idiosyncratic moderation is both baffling and annoying to the point of the game not being worth the candle.
An undetectable 0,04% CO2 effect vs the planet’s surface warming phenomenon.
The dry air has only traces of CO2. The dry air’s CO2 IR absorption is negligible,
It cannot be measured, it cannot be detected – Tyndall couldn’t.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
9. Titan’s (Saturn’s satellite) Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature calculation
Te.titan
So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Titan’s albedo: atitan = 0,22
1/R² = 1/9,04² = 1/81 = 0,01234567
Titan’s sidereal rotation period is 15,9 days
Titan does N = 1/15,9 rotations per day (synchronous rotation)
Titan is a rocky planet, it has atmosphere of 95% N2 and 5% CH4, but very opaque. Titan’s atmosphere is 8 times larger with respect to square meter planet’s surface compared to Earth, so we consider Titan a gaseous planet and Titan’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φtitan = 1.
Titan can be considered as a liquid methane ocean planet,
Cp.methane = 0,4980 cal/gr*oC
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Titan’s Without-Atmosphere effective temperature complete formula Te.titan is
Te.titan = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τe.titan = { 1*(1-0,22)*1.362 W/m² *0.01234*[150 *(1/15,945)*0,4980]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ = ( 85.040.874,10 )¹∕ ⁴ = 96,03 K
Te.titan = 96,03 K it is the calculated
Tsat.mean.titan = 93,7 K (- 179,5 oC) measured by satellites
Titan has an atmosphere of 95% N2 nitrogen plus 5% of greenhouse gas methane CH4. Titan has a minor greenhouse effect phenomenon. This phenomenon is so insignificant that it hasn’t appeared in calculations.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The science originated with Tyndall, Arrhenius and others.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Tyndall
These early and relatively crude experiments have given way to far more precise observations.
“HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. The database is a long-running project started by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (AFCRL) in the late 1960s in response to the need for detailed knowledge of the infrared properties of the atmosphere.
The HITRAN compilation, and its associated database HITEMP (high-temperature spectroscopic absorption parameters), are developed and maintained at the Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics under the continued direction of Dr Laurence S. Rothman.” https://hitran.org/about/
“HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. The database is a long-running project started by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (AFCRL) in the late 1960s in response to the need for detailed knowledge of the infrared properties of the atmosphere.
The HITRAN compilation, and its associated database HITEMP (high-temperature spectroscopic absorption parameters), are developed and maintained at the Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics under the continued direction of Dr Laurence S. Rothman.”
The dry air Tyndall filled the tube with had only traces of CO2.
That is why Tyndall did not detect any change in the amount of energy that passed through the tube.
The dry air has only traces of CO2. The dry air’s CO2 IR absorption is negligible,
It can not be measured, it can not be detected – Tyndall couldn’t.
Did anyone try to repeat Tyndall’s experiment with the dry air in the tube?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Either it is a 0,04% CO2 negligible IR absorption which has to be detected and measured only with very sensitive 21 century’s instruments,
or it is a strong 0,04% CO2 IR absorption and it could be measured by Tyndall’s apparatus.
If assuming this 0,04% CO2 absorption is strong enough to warm Earth’s surface +Δ33oC above the Te = 255 K and to reach the desirable Tmean = 288 K why Tyndall’s apparatus couldn’t detect it?
Did anyone try to repeat Tyndall’s experiment with the dry air in the tube? With very sensitive 21 century’s instruments? In the tube?
I insist, in the tube.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
CO2 is a non condensing greenhouse gas with all that implies for water vapour. It’s radiative properties in the atmosphere – along with other gases – have been observed from US Air Force aircraft since the 1960’s. That provided a foundation for today’s line by line calculations of radiative properties of the atmosphere.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/Download/AFCRL73.pdf
The US Air force has you outgunned Christos.
Tyndall
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/55631000/jpg/_55631240_tyndall624.jpg
“The temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in re-passing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat.” Joseph Fourier, 1824
What Fourier could not do, but Tyndall could, was design and construct apparatus capable of demonstrating and measuring the effect.” https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15093234
NASA takes it to another level.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Aqua_satellite_simulation.jpg
There is an absurd nescience in operation here. None of it is close to true in an experimental, Newtonian sense. Just wild presumptions and assumptions and mad math.
OK, I knew you could do it. I am going to call you bob, for a while. But bob, Cristos is a man of convictions. Probably some we don’t know about. He is not likely to go for this. Maybe you should cut him loose? It’s not amusing, anymore.
Thank you Robert.
“There is an absurd nescience in operation here. None of it is close to true in an experimental, Newtonian sense. Just wild presumptions and assumptions and mad math”.
I am working on it now.
Thank you Don.
“….Cristos is a man of convictions. ..”
It is most encouraging. You gave me wings.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cassini’s CIRS Reveals Saturn Is on a Cosmic Dimmer Switch
11.10.10
Heat emitted from the interior of Saturn (red) shows up in this false-color image of Saturn, made from data taken in 2008 by Cassini’s visual and infrared mapping spectrometer. Credit: NASA/JPL/ASI/University of Arizona
› View image in NASA gallery
From one Saturn year to the next, dramatic changes are seen in the emitted power and effective temperature on Saturn. Credit: Adapted from the Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, E11002, 2010, doi:10.1029/2010JE003631.
› Larger image Like a cosmic light bulb on a dimmer switch, Saturn emitted gradually less energy each year from 2005 to 2009, according to observations by NASA’s Cassini spacecraft. But unlike an ordinary bulb, Saturn’s southern hemisphere consistently emitted more energy than its northern one. On top of that, energy levels changed with the seasons and differed from the last time a spacecraft visited in the early 1980s. These never-before-seen trends came from an analysis of comprehensive data from the Composite Infrared Spectrometer (CIRS), an instrument built by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., as well as a comparison with earlier data from NASA’s Voyager spacecraft. When combined with information about the energy coming to Saturn from the sun, the results could help scientists understand the nature of Saturn’s internal heat source.
The findings were reported November 9 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Planets by Liming Li of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. (now at the University of Houston), and colleagues from several institutions, including Goddard and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena Calif., which manages the Cassini mission. “The Cassini CIRS data are very valuable because they give us a nearly complete picture of Saturn,” says Li. “This is the only single data set that provides so much information about this planet, and it’s the first time that anybody has been able to study the power emitted by one of the giant planets in such detail.”
The planets in our solar system lose energy in the form of heat radiation in wavelengths that are invisible to the human eye. The CIRS instrument picks up wavelengths in the thermal infrared region, which is beyond red light, where the wavelengths correspond to heat emission.
“In planetary science, we tend to think of planets as losing power evenly in all directions and at a steady rate,” says Li. “Now we know Saturn is not doing that.” (Power is the amount of energy emitted per unit of time.)
Instead, Saturn’s flow of outgoing energy was lopsided, with its southern hemisphere giving off about one-sixth more energy than the northern one, Li explains. This effect matched Saturn’s seasons: during those five Earth years, it was summer in the southern hemisphere and winter in the northern one. (A season on Saturn lasts about seven Earth years.) Like Earth, Saturn has these seasons because the planet is tilted on its axis, so one hemisphere receives more energy from the sun and experiences summer while the other receives less energy and is shrouded in winter. Saturn’s equinox, when the sun was directly over the equator, occurred in August 2009.
In the study, Saturn’s seasons looked Earth-like in another way: in each hemisphere, its effective temperature, which characterizes its thermal emission to space, started to warm up or cool down as a change of season approached. Because Saturn’s weather is variable and the atmosphere tends to retain heat (called heat inertia), the temperature changes in complicated ways throughout the atmosphere. “The effective temperature provides us a simple way to track the response of Saturn’s atmosphere, as a system, to the seasonal changes,” says Li. Cassini’s observations in the northern hemisphere revealed that the effective temperature gradually dropped from 2005 to 2008 and then started to warm up again by 2009. In Saturn’s southern hemisphere, the effective temperature cooled from 2005 to 2009, as the equinox started to approach.
The emitted energy for each hemisphere rose and fell along with the effective temperature. Even so, during this five-year period, the planet as a whole seemed to be slowly cooling down and emitting less energy.
To find out if similar changes were happening one Saturn year ago, the researchers looked at data collected by Voyager in 1980 and 1981. Like Cassini CIRS, Voyager recorded fluctuations in the energy emitted by the planet and in the effective temperature. But Voyager did not see the imbalance between the southern and northern hemispheres; instead, the two regions were much more consistent with each other.
Why wouldn’t Voyager have seen the same summer-versus-winter difference between the two hemispheres? The amount of energy coming from the sun (called solar radiance), which drives weather and atmospheric temperatures, could have fluctuated from one Saturn year to the next. The patterns in Saturn’s cloud cover and haze could have, too.
“It’s reasonable to think that the changes in Saturn’s emitted power are related to cloud cover,” says Amy Simon-Miller, who heads the Planetary Systems Laboratory at Goddard and is a co-author on the paper. “As the amount of cloud cover changes, the amount of radiation escaping into space also changes. This might vary during a single season and from one Saturn year to another. But to fully understand what is happening on Saturn, we will need the other half of the picture: the amount of power being absorbed by the planet.”
Li is finishing an analysis of the solar energy that came to Saturn, based on data sets collected by two other Cassini instruments, the imaging science subsystem and the visual and infrared mapping spectrometer. He agrees that this information is crucial because Saturn, like its fellow giant planets Jupiter and Neptune, is thought to have its own source of internal energy. (The fourth giant planet, Uranus, does not seem to have an internal source.) By studying the changes in Saturn’s outgoing energy along with the changes in incoming solar energy, scientists can learn about the nature of the planet’s internal energy source and whether it, too, changes over time.
“The differences between Saturn’s northern and southern hemisphere and that fact that Voyager did not see the same asymmetry raise a very important question: does Saturn’s internal heat vary with time?” says Li. “The answer will significantly deepen our understanding of the weather, internal structure and evolution of Saturn and the other giant planets.”
The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project of NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Italian Space Agency. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., a division of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, manages the mission for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. The Cassini orbiter and its two onboard cameras were designed, developed and assembled at JPL. The composite infrared spectrometer team is based at NASA Goddard, where the instrument was built.
More Cassini information is available at http://www.nasa.gov/cassini and http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov.
Elizabeth Zubritsky
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/dimmer-switch.htm
I am highlighting the following sentences – very important to understand what exactly happens:
“It’s reasonable to think that the changes in Saturn’s emitted power are related to cloud cover,” says Amy Simon-Miller, who heads the Planetary Systems Laboratory at Goddard and is a co-author on the paper. “As the amount of cloud cover changes, the amount of radiation escaping into space also changes. This might vary during a single season and from one Saturn year to another. But to fully understand what is happening on Saturn, we will need the other half of the picture: the amount of power being absorbed by the planet.”
“……But to fully understand what is happening on Saturn, we will need the other half of the picture: the amount of power being absorbed by the planet.”.
“….. the amount of power being absorbed by the planet.”.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is the Planet’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula
Te.complete = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
It derives from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and from the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law.
I have already shown above that planet’s average (mean) temperatures – measured by satellites – relate as [ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
where N rotations /day is also measured by satellites.
Also I have shown that the Φ = 0,47 derives from the planet’s spherical shape reflecting property of 0,53.
Φ = 1 – 0,53
Φ = 0,47
Robert:
“There is an absurd nescience in operation here. None of it is close to true in an experimental, Newtonian sense. Just wild presumptions and assumptions and mad math.”
I have also calculated the planet’s effective temperatures with the Complete Formula and have these remarkable results:
Planet…Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
……………….formula…………formula…..measured
Mercury……….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth…………..255 K…….…288,36 K……..288 K
Moon…………..271 Κ……….221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars…………209,91 K……..213,42 K……..210 K
Robert, why do you think it is a
“There is an absurd nescience in operation here. None of it is close to true in an experimental, Newtonian sense. Just wild presumptions and assumptions and mad math.”?
“None of it is close to true…”, Robert?
Why it is “Just wild presumptions and assumptions and mad math.” for you?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The following is from
“Cassini’s CIRS Reveals Saturn Is on a Cosmic Dimmer Switch
11.10.10”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/dimmer-switch.html
“In the study, Saturn’s seasons looked Earth-like in another way: in each hemisphere, its effective temperature, which characterizes its thermal emission to space, started to warm up or cool down as a change of season approached. Because Saturn’s weather is variable and the atmosphere tends to retain heat (called heat inertia), the temperature changes in complicated ways throughout the atmosphere. “The effective temperature provides us a simple way to track the response of Saturn’s atmosphere, as a system, to the seasonal changes,” says Li. Cassini’s observations in the northern hemisphere revealed that the effective temperature gradually dropped from 2005 to 2008 and then started to warm up again by 2009. In Saturn’s southern hemisphere, the effective temperature cooled from 2005 to 2009, as the equinox started to approach.
The emitted energy for each hemisphere rose and fell along with the effective temperature. Even so, during this five-year period, the planet as a whole seemed to be slowly cooling down and emitting less energy”.
I highlight the following:
“The effective temperature provides us a simple way to track the response of Saturn’s atmosphere, as a system, to the seasonal changes,” says Li. ”
Let’s calculate Saturn’s effective temperature.
We shall apply
Saturn’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula
Te.saturn is:
Te.saturn = [Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ]¹∕ ⁴
Saturn’s sidereal rotation period is10 h 33 min 38 sec, or 10,56 h
N = 24h/10,56h rotations/per day
R = 9,5826 AU, 1/R² = 1/9,5826² = 0,01089 times lesser is the solar irradiation on Saturn than that on Earth.
So = 1.362 W/m² is Solar constant
Saturn’s albedo, asaturn = 0,342
Saturn is a gaseous planet, Saturn’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φsaturn = 1
(Saturn has not surface to reflect the incident sunlight. Accepted by a Gaseous Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 1)
Cp.saturn = 3,1388 cal/gr oC , H₂ specific heat at 175 K, Saturn has not surface, Saturn’s atmosphere consists from 96,3 ± 2,4 % H₂
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So we have:
Saturn’s effective temperature Te.saturn is:
Te.saturn = {1*(1-0,342)1.362*0,01089(W/m²) [150*(24h/10,56h)*3,1388]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸(W/m²K⁴) }¹∕ ⁴ = ( 246.099.617,20 )¹∕ ⁴ = 125,25 K
Te.saturn = 125,25 K is the calculated.
And below is the measured by satellites
Tsat.mean.saturn = 134 K (at 1bar level)
Tsat.mean.saturn = 84 K (at 0,1 bar level).
Let’s, for comparison reason, calculate Saturn’s Effective Temperature Incomplete Formula Te.saturn.incompl is:
Te.saturn.incompl = [ (1-a) So (1/R²) /4σ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.saturn.incompl = [(1-0,342)1.362*0,01089(W/m²) /4*5,67*10⁻⁸(W/m²K⁴) ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 43.025.467,30 )¹∕ ⁴ = 80,99 K = 81 K
Te.saturn.incompl = 81 K is the calculated
.
And below is the measured by satellites
Tsat.mean.saturn = 134 K (at 1bar level)
Tsat.mean.saturn = 84 K (at 0,1 bar level).
And comparing with the Effective Temperature Complete Formula result
Te.saturn.compl = 125,25 K
we may conclude here that the without-atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula, when applied to Gaseous Giant Saturn gives us much closer to the measured by satellites result.
Conclusion: Tsat.mean.saturn = 134 K (at 1bar level)
The differences between
Te.saturn.incompl = 81 K and
Te.saturn.complete = 125,25 K
can be explained because in the effective temperature incomplete formula does not taken in consideration the Rotating Planet Surface Warming Ability:
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
Which means there has been neglected the influence, on the planet’s effective temperature result, the planet’s rotational spin “N rotations/per day ”
and the planet’s specific heat “cp cal/gr oC”.
Thus it was wrongly concluded about the internal warming the Gaseous planets have.
Gaseous planets do not have internal warming, what all Gaseous Planets have is a runaway Greenhouse Effect.
This runaway Greenhouse Effect is similar to the one of planet Venus’.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The correct physics in a nutshell. The difference is the atmosphere.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/earth-temp.png
https://www.physics-in-a-nutshell.com/article/17/surface-temperature-of-the-earth
JC SNIP
I delete comments if:
a) they are content free and their sole purpose is to disparage/insult another commenter
b) they are simply something i don’t want on my blog
c) i actually spot the comment
Substance less and intended only to disparage seems to apply. The rest is arbitrary as I said. Perhaps it is time you lived up to your new year resolutions. But I am beyond caring.
The entire Greenhouse Gases Global Warming theory is an old science.
And here is why:
Comparison of results the planet Te calculated by the Incomplete Formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
the planet Te calculated by the Complete Formula:
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
and the planet Tsat.mean measured by satellites:
Planet…Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
Mercury……….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth…………..255 K………..288,36 K……..288 K
Moon…………..271 Κ………..221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars…………209,91 K……..213,42 K……..210 K
Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ gives very confusing results.
Planet…Te. incomplete
Mercury……….437 K
Earth…………..255 K
Moon…………..271 Κ
Mars…………209,91 K
Robert: “When inserting the values as given in the previous sections, this calculation yields a surface temperature of about Te = 255 K. Even though this value is not quite bad for a very simple model, it still deviates significantly from the actual value of Te = 288 K”.
So the old formula yields Te = 255 K instead of the actual Te = 288 K…
But we have not finished yet:
This formula Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
also deviates significantly for the Mercury Te = 437 K,
instead of the actual Te = 340 K
and it deviates significantly for the Moon Te = 271 K,
instead of the actual Te = 220 K.
It is time to abandon the old effective temperature
Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ formula, because it gives very confusing results.
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC which means that the by atmosphere +Δ33 oC Earth’s surface warming phenomenon does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
The entire Greenhouse Gases Global Warming theory is based on the old effective temperature
Te.incomplete = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ formula the .Earth’s effective temperature calculation Te = 255 K
When applying the Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
Planet…….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
Mercury…….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth………..288,36 K……..288 K
Moon……….221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars………..213,42 K……..210 K
The Earth’s Te is calculated Te = 288,36 K and it is identical to the measured by satellites the actual value of Te = 288 K.
Also almost identical are the calculated with the Complete Formula
Mercury…….346,11 K = 340 K
Moon……….221,74 Κ = 220 Κ
and
Mars………..213,42 K = 210 K
Now everything falls in its place and the entire Greenhouse Gases Global Warming theory becomes an old science.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“This latter point seems in particular to follow from the astonishing relation which the known six planets observe in their distances from the Sun. Let the distance from the Sun to Saturn be taken as 100, then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun. Venus is 4+3=7. The Earth 4+6=10. Mars 4+12=16. Now comes a gap in this so orderly progression. After Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 parts, in which no planet has yet been seen. Can one believe that the Founder of the universe had left this space empty? Certainly not. From here we come to the distance of Jupiter by 4+48=52 parts, and finally to that of Saturn by 4+96=100 parts.”
I don’t know if the above is the damn theory I was trying to recall? Turns out it was just B.S. whatever the theory was.
How much confirmation bias percolates through climate science?
The blocking article and the tropics-jet stream article both can’t wait for the ‘What about climate change?’ chaser question.
Supposedly, we all think in terms of narratives and the constant background of anthropogenic change seems to displace understanding.
@TE: “How much confirmation bias percolates through climate science?”
Not half as much as percolates through climate denial.
Vaughan
I’d love to know your thoughts on how corals which evolved in Cambrian seas while atmospheric CO2 was 10-30,000 ppm, are threatened by acid dissolution in a current increase of CO2 from 280 – 500. Or even let’s say, 1000.
And how those same corals which evolved at average climate temperature 10 C warmer than today, are threatened by heat death if temperatures increase 1.5 C from current.
That is very likely correct, doc. Confirmation bias in climate science is relatively low compared with the deniers, who can be totally wacky. Climate scientists only commit confirmation bias, when it is necessary.
One reason is chemical with slow changes across a broad range of CO2 partial pressure – pH is currently some 8.1.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/co2-acidification-.png
Another is biological with different species at different times – separated by mass extinctions.
“The first cycle, from the pre-Cambrian (>600 Mya) to the mid Cambrian (540 Mya), was dominated by Archaeocyathids (sponge-like animals), stromatolites, and calcareous cyanobacteria and algae.
The second cycle, from the mid-Cambrian to the late Devonian (350 Mya) was dominated by algae-sponge-coral tripartite associations. The corals involved in these associations were ancient (non-scleractinian) tetracorals called rugose corals (e.g., Favistellata tabulata). Cyanobacteria, stromatoporoids (sponge-like animals) were also present, as well as unusual bivalve molluscs called rudists. These communities were complex and diverse.
The third cycle, from the late Devonian to the the late Permian/Triassic (220 Mya), was dominated by algae-bryozoan-coral assemblages. Also present were cyanobacteria, phylloid algae, tubiphytes, foraminifera (still around today), sponges, stromatoporoids and rudist bivalves.
Since the Triassic (i.e., over the last 220 million years), scleractinian corals have become increasingly dominant as reef-builders. Diverse (molecular, stable isotopic, ecological) evidence suggests scleractinian corals formed symbioses with algae soon after their appearance in the fossil record.
Holocene (Recent) reefs probably represent the most developed scleractinian reefs in geological history.” http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eeeb/baker/N0316/Lecture%205/page2.htm
Having crossed in little coastal traders the vast expanse of coral flats in the Coral Sea – with it’s fumaroles and tropical warmth – there is no immediate threat to corals. The science I’ve read suggests that aragonite may become undersaturated in the open Southern Ocean by the end of the century.
Corals have a robust dispersal strategy – but are of course vulnerable to local bleaching with warming oceans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO_2JJynlOA
Should I mention Donnie’s hapless sciolism?
That there is climate denial, is no excuse.
Thank goodness! Back to climate change. I always look forward to the challenge of reading these things that caught your eye.
Hear Hear!
+
‘A century of reduced ENSO variability during the Medieval Climate Anomaly [link]’
In plain language – looking at yearly weather events, unexpected as it may seem… when things are bad, they can get worse and, when things are good they can get better?
Especially for angech, and anybody else who might be interested of course. The latest PIOMAS “modelled” Arctic sea ice thickness map is now available:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/03/facts-about-the-arctic-in-april-2020/#Apr-04
It shows plenty of ice over 4 metres thick north of Greenland at long last:
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PIOMAS-thick-20190331.jpg
However CryoSat-2 “measurements” seem to disagree about that.
Interesting – not much thick ice on the East Coast of Greenland,
indicating the increase was from reduced loss through the Fram Strait?
More symmetric jet / Arctic Oscillation / etc.?
Evenin’ Eddie,
Here’s the latest (modelled!) Fram export volume:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/fram-volume-export-2020-03.png
Of course any reduction in exported sea ice volume may simply indicate there is virtually no thick ice left to export?
NOAA’s 2020 Arctic Report Card isn’t due out until December. Meanwhile according to recent Russian reports there’s actually quite a lot of MYI due to melt out in the Greenland Sea over the next few months:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/AARI-20200331-1024×725.gif
Good afternoon (UTC) Jim, only as an information: the PIOMAS daylie data:
https://i.imgur.com/GgsFwWe.jpg
best Frank
Good evening Frank,
For your information, daily CryoSat-2/SMOS “measured” Arctic sea ice volume suggests that the 2020 maximum may already have been reached:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/03/facts-about-the-arctic-in-april-2020/#Apr-06
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/NRT-Vol-2020-03-14.png
Are you securely “locked down” in your neck of the woods?
Good afternoon (UT) Jim, re max. reached: may or may not, I lost my crystal ball. However, I don’t think so , not every down(up)tick is a trend.
Lockdown: nobody is save during the life which ends with the death, mostly in a bed. Statistically this is the most dangerous location on earth. Neck of the woods: Berlin, Germany :-)
Jim, do you know when the “Report Card” comes out?
Of interest is the multi-year ice product.
Multi-year ice is considerably shinier than first-year ice,
so much of the albedo feedback is from MYO to FYO.
An increase in MYO would be counter to trend.
https://arctic.noaa.gov/Portals/7/EasyGalleryImages/8/462/ARC19_SeaIce_perovich_Fig3.png
Of course, MYI and FYI.
My latest on the science: https://www.cfact.org/2020/04/03/throwing-cold-water-on-hot-climate-models/.
Complicated mathematical models are not substitutes for common sense
Common sense is never identifiable a priori. You have to learn the truth first in order to identify what would have been the correct common sense had you been able to identify it.
A numerical model starts with a conceptual model based on a broad synthesis of domain knowledge. It is often ‘common sense’ to proceed directly from there to a Fermi estimate. Matthew lacks a breadth and depth of knowledge of any natural science and common sense is strangled at birth.
Fermi estimates come before a model is built, not after.
I had in mind in particular an estuarine nutrient model with many barely quantifiable ‘default’ parameters. Domain knowledge and estimates seemed preferable. You never weary of these one line irrelevancies David. Like I said – strangled at birth.
Robert I Ellison: Domain knowledge and estimates seemed preferable.
Always preferable to “common sense.”
How would you know?
From the upcoming issue of Reason magazine:
https://reason.com/2020/04/02/your-recyclables-are-going-to-the-dump/
This piece has nothing to do with the COVID-19 lockdown. It’s just useless, impractical and uneconomic. Recently, China stopped accepting something like 99% of our recycled material. Yet, recycling programs are very popular among politicians and the public. Is there anything that can be done about this?
Well, I have a few ideas. People are now worried about contamination for a different reason. San Francisco has banned those reusable shopping bags:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/02/san-francisco-bans-reusable-bags-in-coronavirus-fight/
Could those stupid Walmart vests that are made from recycled pop bottles be next? Yet, people still like separating (and making other people separate) paper, plastic, … ad nauseam. Well, plastic, which is made of hydrocarbons, mostly from fracked gas, can deliver dispatchable energy if burned. So can paper and cardboard, which could even be classified as biomass. If they are separated from general refuse, I suspect they can be more efficiently burned. People could still go through their virtue signalling ritual and politicians could still wield their power. Just make sure to put the disclosure that they are being burned, in the fine print, where Bill McKibben can’t find it with his bifocals.
I live in Michigan, which has had a very popular beverage container deposit law, since the late ’70s (passed by voter referendum). I would like to suggest extending this to batteries and other electronic waste. Rechargeable batteries for phones and such, are not supposed to go to landfills, but as someone who junk picks, I can assure you that they do. I’ve just noticed a disturbing trend of many new smart phones coming with non-removable batteries. The place I take rechargeable batteries to, won’t take these phones, or even just the battery, if I wedge it out myself. How about having devices over a certain weight, be required to have a removable battery, with a deposit? For under that weight, there could be a deposit on the device. Alternatively, you could just make it a higher deposit for non-removable batteries. There are probably lots of possibilities.
There are other things that could have a deposit, like microwave oven magnetrons. These contain very toxic beryllium. Scrapyards insist that they be removed, but they won’t take them. I can’t find anyone who will take them, but I do know where most of them are going.
Just something for busybodies to ponder during the lockdown.
Northern circulation is still on the west coast of the US. Cold lows fall from the Gulf of Alaska.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
Snowstorm is approaching Reno.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01001/7ml6amcx6tp4.png
Koutsoyiannis finds that there is Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics in patterns of global rainfall. He has for decades. It implies persistence of and shifts between hydrological regimes.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/rranom.aus.0112.7706.png
An enjoyable read….for a number of reasons.
Ideas expressed jargon free – it is a pleasure to read.
I agree it’s a nice paper.
My rule for reading papers on chaotic-nonlinear phenomena: ignore the equations, look at the pictures.
I showed a picture of the 1976/77 ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift’.
Yes something definitely changed 1976-1977. I was 11 and our family had just moved back from Malaysia to UK; 1976 was an exceptionally hot summer but compared to Malaysia, nothing special just dry.
Oceanographers more switched on to nonlinear dynamics like the Koreans and Japanese talk about a Pacific “ground state” which changes at transitions such as these. It may have altered again after the monster El Niño of 1997-1999, the last true Bjerknes type El Niño. (All since then have been “Modoki” pseudo-El Ninos.)
Phil
1975 was also exceptionally nice but has been eclipsed by 1976 so something changed probably around 1975, although bearing in mind that to this day CET shows 1976 to be our warmest summer (as the Met Office eventually reluctantly agreed) it was perhaps more of a step up that was maintained for several decades.
Although since 1998 the CET has been heading fractionally down, not massively up as the media seem to believe.
tonyb
tonyb
Bob Tisdale has also shown that the last half century warming is just a series of ENSO associated steps.
Those hydrological “regimes” are attractors in the phase space of all possible hydrological conditions. Attractor-seeking behaviour of complex systems means that while many things are possible, much fewer actually happen. This can also be called a limit cycle if you consider the system to be a nonlinear network.
“By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded.” Mandelbrot and Wallis, 1968 – http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4eb0/0fe04f7d97431191318416e6f680b45fb446.pdf
Phil has a habit of telling himself pet abstractions. I posit megadrought and megaflood from data. These are revealed in Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics as nonlinear system responses to small changes in a complex dynamical system.
“Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL.” https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/clement-et-al-e1512080464744.png
Replenishing and protecting the world’s soil carbon stores could help to offset up to 5.5bn tonnes of greenhouse gases every year
Here’s the deal. Farmers and logging companies are bad. Yet they can save the climate. The author says that the problem with farmers is government policies and that they’re not too bright.
They’re victims. While in the United States doing about the best job compared to every other socialist country with higher food prices.
Some of the most productive victims I know of.
What are the answers? Restore prairies from farmland in watershed sensitive areas. Have the government pay for that by buying 25 year expiring easements.
Cover crop incentives. Dollars per acre per season. They bend over backwards for wind turbines don’t they? Do you really want to save the climate or do you just want to blame rednecks?
Ironic that cows are the solution and not the problem.
There’s some program land a relative of mine owns. One of the few things you can do with the land is graze cattle in MN. Not so good in the Winter. but I’d say at least 5 months of free roam or whatever hippie phrase that is. The root mass is growing like a mofo.
A powerful snowstorm in Sierra Nevada.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01001/a3oh0hfhew5i.png
New research verifies that sea level rise is causing…
What sea level rise?
2, 3, 4mmm/year.
What is “carbin”??
https://youtu.be/SByP1IGBYJA
Quadratic trend of SLR is now 4.4 mm/yr
You never tire of missing the point David.
Something about carbin and a talking head whining about models. Disjointed responses from Phil – but wtf.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robin_Leichenko/publication/229031900/figure/fig2/AS:300774941839366@1448721742938/Observed-sea-level-at-the-Battery-New-York-City-Trend-is-significant-at-the-95-level.png
Robert – about sea level, the linked paper by Koutsoyiannis et al. tell us where it’s coming from. And it’s not polar ice and amazing grace. But it is anthropogenic. It’s abstracted ground water, pumped by us from land to sea – as you of all people should know:
The most obvious anthropogenic signal in the hydrological cycle appears to be the overexploitation of groundwater, which has a visible effect on sea level rise. Melting of glaciers has an equal effect, but in this case it in not known which part is anthropogenic, as studies on polar regions attribute mass loss mostly to ice dynamics.
https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/hess-2020-120/
Here’s the Koutsoyiannis water balance.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/koutsoyiannis-water-balance.png
Although the reality is dynamic and not static.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=8O3aHV-SxCM&feature=emb_logo
The mass change in oceans from aquifer depletion is less than 1mm/yr. Aquifer depletion is obviously unsustainable. The secret is to retain water in landscapes and thus encourage deep percolation.
e.g. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/soaking-up-australias-drought-natural-sequence-farming/10312844
It can be done on a vast scale transforming continents.
https://thewaterproject.org/sand-dams
Why does the weather stall? New theories explain enigmatic ‘blocks’ in the jet stream
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/why-does-weather-stall-new-theories-explain-enigmatic-blocks-jet-stream
Here’s my new theory. It’s called “turbulence”.
It’s what normally happens when a fluid flows within fluid. By comparison smooth laminar flow is a rare exception.
That was easy.
“You can see spatio-temporal chaos if you look at a fast mountain river. There will be vortexes of different sizes at different places at different times. But if you observe patiently, you will notice that there are places where there almost always are vortexes and they almost always have similar sizes – these are the quasi standing waves of the spatio-temporal chaos governing the river. If you perturb the flow, many quasi standing waves may disappear. Or very few. It depends.” Tomas Milanovic
It is fractal – from microeddies to global waves.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/850hPa/orthographic=-262.30,84.06,278
Shall we perturb the flow and see what happens?
Given carbon cowboys, blue carbon and technological innovation – cooler heads prevail.
Oh do lets!
Oh… here…
https://judithcurry.com/2020/04/03/week-in-review-climate-science-edition/#comment-913481
Looks like La Niña could be on the way for late summer:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Outlooks
That’s not what IRI says:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/
La Nina isn’t what your link said either:
“Six of the eight international climate models surveyed by the Bureau indicate central tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures in the NINO3.4 region will remain at ENSO-neutral levels through the southern hemisphere winter. The remaining two models exceed the La Niña threshold during winter.”
6 of 8
“ENSO predictions made during autumn tend to have lower accuracy than predictions made at other times of the year. This means that current ENSO forecasts beyond May should be used with some caution.
ENSO events, that is, either El Niño or La Niña, typically begin to develop during autumn, before strengthening in winter/spring.”
But here’s the BoM probabilistic forecast in case you missed it David.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20200331.sstOutlooks_nino34.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ocean/outlooks/index.shtml#region=NINO34
phil salmon:
My Prediction:
An El Nino by late summer.
Waiting for El Ninot again?
http://www.napavalley.edu/people/LYanover/Documents/English%20121/English%20121%20Samuel%20%20Beckett%20Waiting%20for%20Godot.pdf
The MEI-V2 captures several key aspects of ENSO behaviour and not just SST in a small region. The Pacific has been quiescent for a few years now – but does tend to transition at this time of year. Models are not good at transitions – hence the spring predictability barrier.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
Until there is La Niña recharge of geopotential energy in the western Pacific – to fuel an El Niño – one can’t occur.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/images/latestdata/ssh/2020/SSHA_20200405_010000.png
Further evidence there is no link between carbon (sic) and climate/weather …
Coronavirus: world’s response has slashed CO₂ emissions
https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-worlds-response-has-slashed-co-emissions-heres-how-to-keep-them-down-134094
Cyclone Harold bears down on Vanuatu, predicted to bring winds of 215kph
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-05/vanuatu-braces-as-category-five-cyclone-harold-approaches/12123442
… and remember …
“But he said “basic physics” governed that [global warming] would increase the intensity of cyclones in the future.
It does not, however, explain this season’s anomaly.
“Being perfectly honest, [global warming] is a factor in most of our climate science these days but in terms of tropical cyclones you couldn’t put this season down to [co2 induced global warming],” he (Dr Andrew Watkins the manager of climate prediction services at the bureau) said.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/cyclone-blanche-is-latest-to-cross-land-in-second-consecutive-quiet-season-in-australian-history/news-story/220bd07cbd24d1db32cfd2175d3ec2ac
Basic physics. Lol.
The relationship is between carbon and climate, not carbon and weather.
And weather is in no relationship with climate. :-)
Carbon exists in various forms in global stores of fluxes. It is standard practice – and convenient – to express them all as carbon content.
… or fluxes…
“The relationship is between carbon and climate, not carbon and weather.”
Wrong: Climate change a key factor in extreme weather, experts say
https://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-a-key-factor-in-extreme-weather-experts-say-20130303-2fefv.html
Thanks for playing, Mr Appell.
Any complaints, See Prof. Steffen.
“Carbon exists in various forms in global stores of fluxes. It is standard practice – and convenient – to express them all as carbon content.”
Convenient if you make stuff up, Mr Ellison.
Must be a laugh a minute in a doomsday global warming ‘science’ lab when someone says “pass the carbon” – when they meant nitrous oxide.
One tonne of nitrous oxide – btw – is equivalent to 298 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide has an atmospheric lifetime of 110 years. But it is not part of the carbon cycle of course. It is central to photochemical smog chemistry.
Claiming that the coronavirus doesn’t doesn’t have a discernible influence on cyclone Harold is utterly stupid. You compound it by being ostentatiously obnoxious.
CO2-greening expands Earth’s carbon sink. By 2100 this will offset 17 years (equivalent) of our CO2 emissions, supplanting the effectiveness of Paris accord policies. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950
A year or two ago Scientific American had an article saying that carbon emissions from thawing permafrost will about negate the CO2 effects of a greening Earth.
A multi-gas and aerosol strategy is required – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.
Given carbon cowboys, blue carbon and technological innovation – facile hypotheticals from David are habitually pointless.
In a few days frosty air from Canada will move to the Great Lakes.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_hgt_trop_NA_f072.png
David, “A year or two ago Scientific American had an article saying that carbon emissions from thawing permafrost will about negate the CO2 effects of a greening Earth.”
No, a few days ago “Nature” article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0734-z
frank
That’s another addition to the things for which CO2 causes opposite changes simultaneously.
Global warming both increases and decreases methane emission.
(Forests are especially bad at producing both methane and CO2 – the latter of which they produce more than cities.)
Maybe in a chaotic world it’s easy to pin any changes on global warming.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-its-so-freaking-hard-to-make-a-good-covid-19-model/
I have a request. I don’t do Twitter. When I click on your feed in the upper right, I sometimes cannot find the article.
Why It’s So Freaking Hard To Make A Good COVID-19 Model
““All models are wrong, it’s striving to make them less wrong and useful in the moment,” Weir said.”
Useful. Value. Bring value or go away.
Why does the weather stall?
“Francis has argued that the encroaching warmth is slowing the jet stream and causing it to form larger blocklike meanders, exacerbating winter weather. But other scientists are skeptical of the mechanism. The controversy has exposed just how much there is to learn about blocking, Wang says. “The lack of theory is really the root cause of a lot of confusion we now have.””
It looks to me that the article suggests passing a threshold caused by a warming climate.
These blocks are a problem. They said so. It would be nice if they understood how they worked. It could help validate their models.
A settled science can handle apparent contradictions and unexplained phenomena. There is no difference between settled science and politics.
There is a big discrepancy in Arctic ice reporting,
between this at DMI:
https://i2.wp.com/ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png
and this at NSIDC:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Not forgetting this one from JAXA?
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/JAXA-2020-03-31.png
Haven’t you got used to that sort of thing yet Phil? Different sensors and different algos!
No – I haven’t. Are they orbiting the same planet?
Yes I know that sensors degrade in an ionizing radiation flux – I see that in CT systems – but that’s a wide range of Arctics.
So I see, and yes they are. Here is your starter for 10:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JC012768
This study provides consistency assessment of four of the leading products, namely, Goddard Bootstrap (SB2), Goddard NASA Team (NT1), EUMETSAT Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI‐SAF 1.2), and Hadley HadISST 2.2 data in evaluating variability and trends in the Arctic sea ice cover. All four provide generally similar ice patterns but significant disagreements in ice concentration distributions especially in the marginal ice zone and adjacent regions in winter and meltponded areas in summer.
Thanks. So it’s not detector related. They all use the same image data, the differences are in image quantitative analysis algorithms.
I am afraid that the winter attack in the northeast of the US will increase the number of Covid-19 victims.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01002/r2ogbkaj2k7b.png
Just heard that Fred Singer died
https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/04/07/rip-award-winning-atmospheric-scientist-dr-fred-singer-dies-pioneering-scientist-the-dean-of-climate-skeptical-scientists/
I knew Fred pretty well. A great man indeed!
Observations may indicate that in countries where there was mandatory vaccination against tuberculosis, the epidemic (Covid-19) is not growing rapidly.
Ireneusz, about 70% of old people are Mantu test positive.
It means they have tuberculosis resistance they acquired many years ago.
May they have some kind of resistance to the Covid-19?
Anyway everyone should stay at home not to get infected and not to spread the Covid-19.
Eventually we humans always win.
Good morning Christos (UTC),
“Eventually we humans always win.”
Not according to Nassim Taleb we don’t:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/04/covid-19-in-the-united-kingdom/
While there is a very high probability for humanity surviving a single such event, over time, there is eventually zero probability of surviving repeated exposures to such events. While repeated risks can be taken by individuals with a limited life expectancy, ruin exposures must never be taken at the systemic and collective level.
Hence I heartily agree with your “stay at home” advice, although here in the once Great Britain we are allowed out once a day to get some much needed exercise.
Good morning Jim.
“While repeated risks can be taken by individuals with a limited life expectancy, ruin exposures must never be taken at the systemic and collective level”.
Here in Greece we also are allowed out once a day to get some much needed exercise. Some people’s behavior is very dangerous – too much exercise.
Due to the measures our government has taken earlier than some other countries we experience here a much lower mortality rate.
It is a very vulnerable situation. One mistake and the Covid-19 will run out of control.
It is a collective international effort.
I assume world will be different – I believe and I wish for the better.
I tried commenting on the dedicated COVID thread, but I seem to be stuck in moderation. I guess this still counts as “science” though?
At least the IHME Greek numbers look a lot better than ours in the UK:
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IHME-DailyDeaths-2020-04-07.png
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IHME-GR-DailyDeaths-2020-04-07.png
Let’s continue staying at home and hope for the better.
The situation is very dangerous.
Christos
The economy will bounce back quickly. Ko will lose his life, he will not get it back.
This graphic illustrates the unfortunate travesty of the response in this country to COVID 19
https://digg.com/video/coronavirus-spread-animation
Oh wait. That needs to be updated.
Scroll down:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-51235105
Gaseous Planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune T1bar average temperatures 165 K, 134 K, 72 K comparison
All data are satellites measurements
.
R – semi-major axis in AU (Astronomical Units)
a – planet’s average albedo
N – rotations /day – planet’s spin
T1bar – planet atmosphere at 1 bar average temperature in Kelvin
Planet.…Jupiter…..Saturn….Neptune
R………….5,2044…..9,5826.….30,33
1/R²…….0,0369…0,01089…0,001087
a……………0,503…0,342…….0,290
1-a……..…..0,497…0,658…….0,710
N………….2,4181…2,2727….1,4896
T 1 bar…….165 K….134 K……72 K
Coeff…0,388880… 0,306264…0,170881
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Jupiter
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,497*0,0369*(2,4181)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,497*0,0369*1,2470 ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,0228691 )¹∕ ⁴ =
= 0,388880
Saturn
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,658*0,01089*(2,2727)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,658*0,01089*1,2278 )¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,0087980 )¹∕ ⁴ =
= 0,306264
Neptune
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,710*0,001087*(1,4896)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,710*0,001087*1,1048 )¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,000852651 )¹∕ ⁴ =
= 0,170881
Let’s compare
Jupiter coeff. /Saturn coeff. =
= 0,388880 /0,306264 = 1,2698
T1bar.jupiter /T1bar.saturn = 165 /134 = 1,2313
Jupiter coeff. / Neptune coeff. =
= 0,388880 /0,170881 = 2,2757
T1bar.jupiter /T1bar.neptune = 165 /72 = 2,2917
Saturn coeff. /Neptune coeff. =
= 0,306264 /0,170881 = 1,7923
T1bar.saturn /T1bar.neptune = 134 /72 = 1,8611
Conclusion:
Gaseous planets Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune average T1bar temperatures relate the same way as the rocky inner planets Mercury, Moon and Mars average surface temperatures, and also as the Earth with Europa average surface temperatures.
The comparison coefficient is the same:
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
The planets being separated in groups (Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune), (Mercury, Moon and Mars), (Earth with Europa) only by their similar specific heat.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
According to the app “Night Sky” last night, there is apparently a near synod of Jupiter, Saturn, Mars and Pluto.
https://i.imgur.com/h6yRu6N.jpg
This will be a severe attack of winter weather in the United States.
https://files.tinypic.pl/i/01002/spkvu5tp2jt9.png
A book for your consideration, though I get twitchy when the words climate and emergency are in juxtaposition.
The Hidden Power of Systems Thinking: Governance in a Climate Emergency
by Ray Ison (Author), Ed Straw (Author)
Just published
The message is:
Stay at home.
Pingback: Maapallon vihertyminen johtuu CO2-lisäyksestä | Roskasaitti
Re: Interesting new paper generates significantly lower climate sensitivity estimates when models are constrained by observational data.
There are some who claim that the US government, and possibly others, are secretly injecting chemicals into the atmosphere in order to combat climate change. If the modelers don’t know this, then it would make sense that the model is at variance with the data, because the data is incomplete.
—Paul Morand
Paul Morand – what’s the scientific evidence for your conspiracy theory?
Good morning angech (UTC),
Your fortnightly heads up. The mid month PIOMAS Arctic sea ice thickness/volume numbers have hit the streets:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/03/facts-about-the-arctic-in-april-2020/#Apr-21
The discrepancy between the PIOMAS model and the CryoSat-2 “reality” is still very evident.
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/piomas-trnd-20200415.png
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/NRT-Vol-2020-04-15.png
Why is CryoSat-2 considered the “reality” of Arctic sea ice volume?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz53XxPFXYc
(French commented) Documentary on the history of the theory of anthropogenic global warming and the organization of the UN which promotes it since 1988: IPCC. Why do the world’s most reputable climatologists disagree – some for 30 years – with the IPCC reports, most of them opting out? How is politics at the heart of the constitution of the IPCC, including Margaret Thatcher then Al Gore as well as Barak Obama? This documentary in archives, begins in the 1970s and ends in 2020. It attempts to give the most complete historical and scientific vision of this very controversial story of global warming, which has become climate change, and of the institution that campaigns for change. the energy deal on the planet, IPCC.
Everything started with error
.
And here is why.
The planet’s old incomplete effective temperature formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
is defined as a planet’s equilibrium temperature in the absence of atmosphere.
When calculated, the Earth’s Te = 255 K, instead of the satellite measured actual Te = 288 K —- the cause was obvious.
Earth’s surface was considered warmer by +Δ33oC because of the planet Earth’s atmosphere.
It was error.
.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Just thought I’d float this idea I was discussing at ATTP.
The relevance to Nic Lewis might be the concept of ECS testing in the context of the 12 hours of daylight.
The atmosphere must reach an equilibrium each day.
Therefore for that moment of balance the ECS for whatever CO2 and water vapour in the air at that moment must be exact.
Why not?
Comments welcome.
ATTP
“If there’s warming then I think you still need some kind of flux imbalance. My understanding is that quite soon after a perturbation (say, an increase in atmospheric CO2) the LW fluxes can return to balance, but the cloud feedback leads to an imbalance in the SW fluxes, which then dominates the subsequent warming.”
izen “The increase in surface temperature is a result in the greater thermalisation of OLR from the surface in the lower layers of the atmosphere, not in a imbalance in the energy flux for the whole system.”
–
“If there’s warming then I think you still need some kind of flux imbalance” This bit is very true but emphasises the problem raised by Izen.
If warming is occurring there must be a flux imbalance.
We see this every day when the sun comes up. The GHG concentration does not change **[much] but the atmosphere heats up and the radiating layer goes much further outward.
So some energy has been garnished from the sun and thermalised.
–
But what happens when the heat input stabilizes say just after midday[** more provisos].
For a short period of tome the energy in equals the energy out as everything is in balance.
Then the radiating layer contracts as the atmosphere cools.
–
Does the CO2 level affect this pattern? No [* more provisos].
What it does affect though is the amount of atmospheric thermalisation that day.
The atmosphere will be warmer with more CO2 in it.
Not in 100 years but at that lovely moment of equibrilation.
Which occurs every day, usually after midday, though it might occur several times around that time due to albedo cloud changes.
–
ATTP “quite soon after a perturbation (say, an increase in atmospheric CO2) the LW fluxes can return to balance,”
OK
” but the cloud feedback leads to an imbalance in the SW fluxes, which then dominates the subsequent warming.”
–
Not sure of this. Feedbacks occur including clouds which is more part of the expected imbalance due to the change in incoming heat.
The SW fluxes can only be variable due to the variable albedo? They temporarily alter the actual heat input which is why you might have several moments of equilibrium usually after midday. The longterm feedback effect amplification is more due to increased GHG [water vapour] in the air raising the ECS not the SW effects.
Good morning angech.
Do you consider Earth’s atmosphere as a whole, so every given moment there is a midnight and a midday at the opposite sides of the glob?
The T = 288 K is the Earth’s satellite measured average (mean) temperature.
When applying the Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
Planet…….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
Mercury…….346,11 K……..340 K
Earth………..288,36 K……..288 K
Moon……….221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
Mars………..213,42 K……..210 K
The Earth’s Te is calculated Te = 288,36 K and it is identical to the measured by satellites the actual value of Te = 288 K.
Also almost identical are the calculated with the Complete Formula
Mercury…….346,11 K = 340 K
Moon……….221,74 Κ = 220 Κ
and
Mars………..213,42 K = 210 K
Notice:
T = 288 K is Earth’s average temperature. Earth’s surface actually does not have this temperature. Earth does not have a uniform global temperature as the Sun T = 5.780 K has.
But can we consider T = 288 K as Earth’s equilibrium temperature too?
Is the planet’s equilibrium temperature being the planet’s rotational spin and the planet’s surface specific heat dependent value?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos. Thanks for your comment.
I cannot see your formula including GHG.
The insistence on alternative ways of scientifically calculating expected temperatures needs to include all acceptable parameters or a reason for excluding them.
The composition of the atmosphere however is vital to the temperature that will develop on the surface of that planet and that must include GHG.
I appreciate that you have put a lot of thought and effort into your ideas and hopefully will continue to do so.