by Patrick Michaels
A critique of Judah Cohen’s recent cover article in Science linking February’s disastrous cold outbreak in Texas to global warming
I’ve always had trouble with the notion that warming causes cooling. It leaves me with the squeasy feeling I get when my country neighbors insist that putting hot water in the ice cube tray results in quicker ice cubes. That’s actually an experiment you can run, and I can assure that it most certainly does not (despite the arguments that are likely to follow in the comments section).
But it’s much harder to run a similar experiment on, say, the hypothesis that an anomalous and costly ($200 billion) cold outbreak in Texas last February was caused by global warming. Leaving out that much of the damage had to do with remarkably unprotected generation equipment—both conventional and renewable—it was very cold and windy, even by Texas blue norther standards. You just can’t stick a slightly warmer Texas in the fridge to see if it now freezes faster.
Predictably, champions of the warming-causes-cold-anomalies have come forward, with Judah Cohen, a consulting atmospheric scientist, with his theory that sea-ice changes in the arctic and snow-driven October changes in Siberia conspire to stretch the stratospheric polar vortex down to, say, Texas. Somehow his stuff always makes it into The New York Times, which is likely not a measure of its quality, but rather yet another thing to turn on their climate change alarm (which it rarely turns off).
Cohen concludes:
“Therefore, Arctic change is likely contributing to the increasing of SPV [Stratospheric Polar Vortex] stretching events, including one just prior to the Texas cold wave of February 2021.”
How he reached this conclusion is a conventional story. First, break down some target variable (in this case,100mb-heights) into characteristic patterns, and then use a General Circulation Model (GCM) to explain its behavior. While Cohen and his four coauthors said the patterns were from “a machine learning technique”, it was actually good old-fashioned cluster analysis, something that has been around physical geography since the ice age.
Guess what. Amplitudes of some of the clusters are going up, others are going down and, 40% have no statistically significant changes. Cohen then correlated these changes to October Eurasian snow cover.
Given that Cohen has had some success in correlating October Siberian snow amount and geographic advance across with cold outbreaks into the U.S. (along with reductions in ice cover in the Arctic Ocean), he sought to “prove” the relationship with “a simplified GCM…well suited for isolating the atmospheric response to idealized heating perturbations”. The model is acronymed MiMA, for Model with an idealized Moist Atmosphere.
The word idealized isn’t defined, nor is the related reasoning, so we have to consult Chaim Garfinkel, the fourth author of the Cohen paper, and the first author of a paper describing MiMA, where we find out that it’s “idealized” because the extant GCMs are “tuned” so much that they become unstable:
“These comprehensive [general circulation] models, however, tend to be less flexible and tuned such that removing too many relevant forcings leads to unstable behavior.”
A good guess as to what’s “tuned” in the GCMs that leads to unstable behavior might be what’s left out of MiMA – it has no clouds. The albedo (think of “reflectivity”) of clouds exerts a net cooling particularly over latitudes away from the tropics. MiMA artificially decreases the earth’s albedo because of its lack of clouds, from constant 27% down to about a constant 20% (in reality it is never constant), which represents a massive 25% increase in solar radiation heating the earth’s surface.
So, to this simulated climate, Cohen et al. change (raise) the albedo of Siberia and east Asia in the early fall, to compensate for an increase in October snow cover that has been detected since 1979, as well as raise the temperature of the model’s Arctic Ocean to get it to lose more ice.
And, presto-chango, the modified model stretches its wintertime polar stratospheric vortex to somehow get to Texas in February 2021. How useful this is for his company that makes money by selling in-advance winter forecasts. Just think of how many billion dollars (and lives) could be saved the next time he makes such a forecast!
Indeed, Cohen goes on to note: “Third, our analysis is informative for policymakers”. He finishes by noting that it’s unwise to prepare for “only a decrease in severe winter weather” (there is some evidence Texas did this, judging from the performance of their backup gas plants, which were too cold to fire up), when the stratospheric vortex might stretch all the way down to the Lone Star State, as shown by his cloudless, constant-albedo model of what can only charitably be related to the earth’s climate.
So does Cohen actually get a better handle on Texas cold outbreaks in an atmosphere with no clouds and a constant albedo? Except for Siberia, which he did brighten, which, everything else being equal, will become colder from increased snowfall precipitated by a cloudless atmosphere. This allows the big, seasonal cold Siberian high-pressure systems to get larger, increasing the likelihood that the vortex will transport some of its cold air down to Texas.
If you’re scratching your head after reading this, think of how much hair I lost reading Cohen’s paper. It’s got a lot of pretty pictures that look seductive until you get into the details as to how they were ultimately applied by the MiMA model.
The bottom line is that Cohen et al. are going to have to be lot more convincing before I believe that a single month’s snowfall in Siberia drives the weather thousands of miles and several months away.
Just published today, very relevant https://www.pnas.org/content/118/38/e2104105118
curryja: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/38/e2104105118
Thank you for the link. Always good to have competing prognoses.
Here is the scary headlines that goes with the paper warning the jet stream moving northward (not southward), but not yet, in 2060 definitely… maybe… if all their modeled assumptions of are valid:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9988977/Climate-change-North-Atlantic-jet-stream-migrate-north-2060-leading-extreme-weather.html
My summary of the mild, harmless global warming since the mid-1970s:
— The most warming was in the Northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the coldest six months of the year, and mainly at night.
A cold weather event for a few days in Texas, is only a tiny part of the 30 to 50 year global average of weather, that we call “climate”.
> How useful this is for his company that makes money by selling in-advance winter forecasts.
You heard it first at Judy’s!
Actually my company makes seasonal temperature forecasts also; we do not use Siberian snow cover as a predictor for our winter forecasts.
How useful a contrarian outlet publishing PatM’s Reviewer 2 review is to make money by selling seasonal temperature forecasts.
Willard, Dr. Curry directly bets her future financial wellbeing on her scientific work. Your apparent heroes have comfortable sinecures that insulate them from the consequences of incorrect predictions.
Dave,
I see no downside to Pat’s hit job. It requires almost no work from him. The Contrarian Matrix will promote the post. No Denizen will ever double check anything said.
In the real world, people have to pay for that kind of publicity!
Willard: No Denizen will ever double check anything said.
An intriguing comment.
I read Judah Cohen’s paper and the supplemental information, and I did not find where Patrick Michaels misrepresented anything. What did I miss?
Out of interest, when a Sudden Stratospheric Warming occurs in a NH winter, do you have techniques to incorporate such events into your prediction methods?
I’m not a professional, but SSW events do seem to have quite reasonable predictive value on a scale of 1-3 months going forward….
So since Judith thinks motive-impugning of her isn’t justified she has no problem putting up a post that motive-impugns others
Next she’ll complain about alarmists calling people deniers.
Not Joshua above surely.
He does not denigrate or make derogatory comments about people…..
He says so repeatedly while
I criticized an argument she made. I didn’t assign to her a denigrating label along with hundreds millions of other people, because they have an opinion different than my own.
You just criticized an argument YOU made, because it was a facile argument clearly rooted in the simple fact that you didn’t understand a basic distinction. .
Don’t take it personally. Criticizing your argument is not a denigrating argument about you. .
Even if I slipped up and did assign a denigrating lable to you, along with hundreds of millions of other people, merely because you disagree with (it’s not like I never did that before and it’s not likely I would never slip up on the future and do it again), it wouldn’t change the simple fact that you had done so previously and declined to hold yourself accountable for doing so.
Are you familiar with tu quoque?
Joshua: “she’ll complain about alarmists calling people deniers”
And she would be right as this is an insult and not helpful in any discussion. Clive Mass has written a post about this:
https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/05/why-one-should-never-use-term-climate.html
Joshua: I criticized an argument she made.
Where did you do that? I can not find where you quoted an argument of hers and provided a criticism of it.
morfu –
My point wasn’t clear. Let me try another way.
We could really solve this whole global warming issue if those poopyheads would just stop calling us poopyheads.
Let the ClimateBall commence! Do not discuss the topic! Attack the publisher of an article!!! Cue Russell Crowe: Are you not entertained?
If Pat himself deflects from the topic in his Reviewer 2 rant, who will?
Surely, thomaswfuller2.
Climateball is essentially a linear Rube Goldberg type of game, but instead of using kinetic energy, the way Rube did, Bingo often uses disparate, or disconnected names, words, ideas, or conceptual connections in such a way to bind their relationships into a manufactured continuity of thought.
There was a documentary that used the same logic by way of connecting linear events, i.e., if not for the fact that a certain individual was rejected from art school then WWII would have never started; simpler yet, art was the impetus for WWII.
A manufactured continuity lies between your two paragraphs, Trunks.
There’s no real causality in the Climate Ball. It’s not really linear either. But if that makes you sound cool to say “linear Rube Golberg type of game” (which is not a type of game anyway), be my guest.
“Official Rube Goldberg Invention Game”: https://store.steampowered.com/app/292090/Rube_Works_The_Official_Rube_Goldberg_Invention_Game/ It’s a puzzle game too, Bingo, but that it’s also a game isn’t really the point here. The point is that the game evolves from disparate linear connections utilizing kinetic energy to evolve towards a climatic conclusion; whereas your game, also an invention, instead uses disparate connections from words, linearly, to evolve an interpretive POV from each word towards a central climatic conclusion. It’s your perspective that creates the causality in your effort.
So your game is a contrived thought game that threads interpretations together to buttress a POV. This game is a parlor playground for likeminded ideologues to borrow from, that’s how you promote it, that’s all it is.
A game isn’t a type of games, Trunks.
What you’re referring to is called physics games:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puzzle_video_game#Physics_game
The game you’re trying to ridicule while playing it is a variant of a parlour game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlour_game
Language is a social art.
A game isn’t a type of game? Yea, sure Bingo; there’s only one card game. I used an analogy to describe your nonsense game. Like I said, your game is a nonsense parlor playground.
*Rube Works* is a game, Trunks. It’s not a type of game.
Checkers is a game. It’s not a type of game.
The Climate Ball is a game. It’s not a type of game.
Need I go on?
Another one of Bingo’s silly dances.
Since you are drawn to definitions: Analogy—A similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
Maybe we should just to play into your silliness; here’s an illustration of some of your bingo square moves:
> Maybe we should just to play
You already do, Trunks. Please own it. For instance, so far you have “manufactured” many “discontinuities” to suggest one and only one thing: that the game in which you deny to participate makes no sense. That’s what I call the Chewbacca Attack:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/Chewbacca
I’m trying to write a short play on an old exchange between BartR and Brave Brandon that happened before you appeared at Judy’s. You can read the first draft in the collection above cited.
Do you think a play is a type of game?
All the world’s a stage—Bingo, and you think you’ve invented something
Putting words into one’s opponent’s mind isn’t part of the Bingo, Trunks.
You might like:
That’s from a book called Homo Ludens, written by a guy who’s not me.
As usual, your stage presence gets rather tedious, please walk this way:
Please be careful with correlation as it doesn’t imply causality although there are straightforward experimental methods of demonstrating the basic greenhouse effect itself. As a flippant example of why the corrlation / causality trap exists, there have been no nuclear wars since 1945 while, during that time, politicians’ salaries in the UK have increased steadily and by more than many other jobs. This clearly doesn’t mean that a pay freeze in the British parliament will trigger a holocaust.
Patrick Michaels, thank you for this essay.
How he reached this conclusion is a conventional story. First, break down some target variable (in this case,100mb-heights) into characteristic patterns, and then use a General Circulation Model (GCM) to explain its behavior. While Cohen and his four coauthors said the patterns were from “a machine learning technique”, it was actually good old-fashioned cluster analysis, something that has been around physical geography since the ice age.
Now that they have done that, they can publish the MiMa “forecasts” for all portions of the earth surface, for all seasons (or at least all winters), for the next 20 years. As was recommended for the modelers who accounted for the recent extreme heat wave for the Pacific Northwest.
These postdictions are not tests of the theory, but tests of modeler ingenuity in rescuing the theories from unpredicted events. Tests are provided by comparing future events to the forecasts of them.
Good to see that scepticism of a climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere in such a manner has reached climate etc.
One wonders whether a specific predicting such as whether the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s could be made with this sort of work.
Keep up the good work.
Knowing in advance what I want to “prove”, it is just a matter of trying correlations until I find a supporting one.
No matter how beautiful the model, if it doesn’t conform to reality,
it’s wro-o-ong ! Ht/You know who…
True Beth, but then the fights start about establishing and/or accurately measuring reality. There does seem to be an attitude in some quarters that opinions (perhaps including faith) can somehow influence it. Science should be about the search for truth but scientists on their bad days can have the same flaws, hang-ups and prejudices as everyone else.
“…linking February’s disastrous cold outbreak in Texas to global warming”
Expect much more of this as the natural multidecadal (~60 y quasi-cycle) warming changes to cooling in the next few decades.
“Expect much more of this as…” politicians continue to discover there is no limit to the amount of money you can spend under the guise that you can control the weather with it.
And more importantly, they control the presentation of the weather forecast. Hot, cold, wet, dry, normal or abnormal, it literally doesn’t matter- their “forecast” is for all of those at all times and in all places. Therefore the forecast is never “wrong” and the assumptions on which the forecast is made can never be questioned. Just accept that whatever the weather is, it’s your fault and it’s dire.
That’s why the EU is patting itself on the back for increased “pledges” to reduce the emissions even as they crank up the volume on fossil fuel use for energy and shut down emissions-free power. They do it because they can. We’re literally in a post-truth political world. How sustainable that is depends on when the money runs out.
They control the presentation on everything now.
The global warming narrative is probably the best example of how the powers that be have perfected their propoganda models over the years successfully silencing and smearing any scientist that publicly questions the big lie.
Every narrative now seems possible and 2020 was a great year to put their models to the test in other areas, and they passed with flying colours.
A fake pandemic based on lies
A global movement Black Lives Matter based on lies
A fake insurrection
A fake vaccine
Oh and for this page, a fake hottest year on record or as the honourable fake socialist Bernie put it, the hottest year in the history of planet earth.
Indeed it’s easy to tell the biggest lies when you control the presentation.
Why will the polar vortex be blocked over the Bering Strait?
This is what blocking over the Bering Strait in the lower stratosphere looked like in January 2018 and 2021.
https://i.ibb.co/59Dz3HM/gfs-t100-nh-f00.png
https://i.ibb.co/JQvTR2X/gfs-t100-nh-f00.png
This was the ozone distribution in February 2020.
https://i.ibb.co/jbyqPVq/gfs-toz-nh-f00.png
Because during periods of weak solar magnetic wind fields, ozone and galactic radiation will accumulate during the winter in exactly the area where the greatest Arctic magnetic field weakening occurs. Ozone as a diamagnetic is pushed away by the stronger magnetic field. The concentration of GCR in this region is obvious, which may influence the temperature rise in this region. Conclusion – North America is prone to frequent stratospheric intrusions to the south of the continent during winter.
The strong magnetic field of the solar wind causes a more uniform distribution of ozone, which can be compared to the shape of the aurora borealis.
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_dy.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/WBxQQ9Q/latest.jpg
Brief Introduction to Stratospheric IntrusionsStratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Putting all the meters used to control the energy plants indoors would have avoided a lot of these problems. A frozen $100 meter placed outdoors to save money cost millions of dollars.
Wonder why ONCOR didn’t use their wireless Smart Meters to selectively switch off individual homes and small businesses for a few hours at a time rather than blackout whole neighborhoods for 2-3 days straight.. Could have saved a lot of lives.
Alex Epstein –
“Instead, the media are telling the story that “fossil fuels failed” because certain gas and coal plants went offline in one of these regions–Texas–due to preventable problems. (We know that these problems were preventable because places that are much colder and snowier than Texas use gas and coal with great success.)”
https://industrialprogress.com/texas-electricity-crisis-the-big-picture/
I had predicted a cold shot for the first half of February 2021, we had it in the UK too. It was likely exacerbated by the January Sudden Stratospheric Warming event, but was going to happen then anyway, regardless of Siberian snow cover or Arctic sea ice extent.
I had predicted the deep cold in early April 2021 too, which hit western Europe hard. These events are discretely solar driven, and are predictable at any range.
Arguments about “global warming” have evolved to avoid using that language after the warming stopped. It is now just called “climate change”. Now it doesn’t matter whether we experience sudden and extreme cold or warmth it can always be blamed on climate change as the direction and the degree of the change no longer matter. The broader the label the more that fits under it and the less scrutiny given to the explanation for the attribution. So today global climate is equated with local weather and any bad weather is blamed on climate change.
Pingback: Dubious Climate Science Blames Global Warming For Texas Cold Disaster - altnews.org
The origin of the winter storm Uri was a Sudden Stratospheric Warming event 2-3 weeks before the polar vortex split and that caused the frigid artic air to spill out over N. America. I think human emissions of GHG are contributing to these rouge SSW events and they seem to be increasing in size, strength and frequency.
Try to explain how “human emissions” reach the upper stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2021.png
https://scitechdaily.com/antarctic-air-samples-reveal-70-increase-in-atmospheric-hydrogen-over-the-past-150-years/
“Earth system scientists at UCI studied air trapped in compacted layers of Antarctic ice and snow to come up with some answers and a few new questions about the amount of molecular hydrogen in our planet’s atmosphere. H2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, biomass burning, and the oxidation of methane, among other sources, and has an impact on global warming and the ozone layer. The UCI researchers, who were joined by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Colorado Boulder and UC San Diego, learned that molecular hydrogen increased from 330 to 550 parts per billion in Earth’s atmosphere from 1852 to 2003, the time span measured in the firn air collected near the South Pole at Megadunes, Antarctica. The team reported its findings in a paper published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
Hydrogen is not a GHG but I fully expect that these rapid changes in the composition of our atmosphere will affect the climate.
https://www.climatelevels.org/
And how do you explain that the temperature in the upper stratosphere (the 1 hPa level in the graph), after rising sharply, fell just as sharply and to very low levels?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png
See excerpts and Figures from the Paper at
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
“Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/8 was + 0.18 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in ”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2. From time to time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South. Local weather in the Northern Hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with, in summers occasional more northerly extreme heat waves droughts and floods and in winter more southerly unusually cold snaps and late spring frosts.
Population and Sustainability
Zaichun Zhul et al 2016 (36) in Greening of the Earth and its drivers report “a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated Leaf Area Index (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area from 1982 – 2009. ………. CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend.” Policies which limit CO2 emissions or even worse sequester CO2 in a quixotic attempt to mitigate these natural cycles would decrease agricultural food production and are antithetical to the goals of feeding the increasing population and bringing people out of poverty
Additionally, the tropical rain forests and tropical oceans are the main source of the atmosphere’s water vapor and the rainfall essential to life and agriculture on land. Potable and agricultural water supplies are now competing and stretched to their limits in many areas because of the global population increase. ………………………………… Modern industrial civilization, especially in large Megacities, cannot function for long without continuous adequate power supply, and functional global food and basic resource supply chains. The 2021 Texas freeze killed about 200 people. Long lines for food and water provided a red-flag warning of the present dangers of a cooling world. Not coincidentally, the Earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. ……………………..The UNEP, IPCC and UNFCCC “consensus” scientific community’s unwarranted focus on future CO2 levels, and global warming mitigation via “net zero” energy policies has been adopted by most Governments, Mainstream Media, NGOs and leading politicians as the basis for climate and energy policy. At COP 26 Individual Governments will decide where and how, given their different political systems and demographics, they will draw the line between accommodation for other species and natural ecosystems and poverty reduction, economic development and consumer consumption levels.”
It is clear that China and India have the most pragmatically useful climate and energy policies. The UK ,USA and EU are self delusional to the point of being economically suicidal.
Rick Perry, former Sec of Energy and Gov of Texas, said that the problem with the natural gas system in Texas was a reflection of an EPA mandate. The pipeline compressor stations, think pump stations, were mandated to switching from natural gas powered compressors to electric powered in order to curtail emissions. Oops, when the wind stopped so did the compressors.
So how do natural gas power plants operate in cold states.
And why would Texas have to operate differently?
The compressors are located at the well sites and where low pressure gas lines feed into higher pressure gas lines. the problem is getting the gas into the pipelines .
Would the EPA be partly responsible for this disaster?
Every time you hear that it was natural gas’ failure that led to the outage, think EPA mandate to use electricity produced in large part by the wind industry, instead of the traditional compressor powered by burning natural gas. Texas has more wind energy than any other state in the union. EPA Web site “Texas leads the nation in wind-powered generation and produced about 28% of all U.S. wind-powered electricity in 2020. ” It is also 3X larger than the second state’s wind power. So when the wind stops blowing, gas stops being pushed into and down the pipelines. No wind, no natural gas. So yes EPA’s mandate is directly responsible.
It was ERCOT that ordered ONCOR to dump demand. Gas suppliers were supposed to file a report to ERCOT that designated their facilities (pumps and wells) should be excluded from regional grid shutdowns. Since ERCOT told ONCOR what sections of the grid to shut down based on those ‘critical infrastructure’ filings it boils down to sloppy paperwork. I don’t think there is even a fine for not reporting so nobody broke the law.
https://www.powermag.com/ercot-program-cut-natural-gas-supply-during-winter-storm/
I can’t find any sign of an EPA mandate. Only this: “In 2016, the EPA issued a strong recommendation that pipeline operators convert to electric compressors throughout their operations to reduce gas losses.”
Please provide a link to the relevant EPA regulation. thanks. My wife thinks this is bogus so I need proof.
Rick Perry’s probably best known for two things: failing to convince East Texas landowners that they should simply roll over and accept the confiscation of their property for a toll road project, this on behalf of a foreign-owned construction company; and a disastrous appearance on Dancing with the Stars. Granted, Perry was a better dancer than politician. Treat any allegedly factual statement from him with caution. In the case of an EPA “mandate,” I don’t think EPA ever issued such a directive. In a 2015 proposal, EPA specifically exempted wellhead compressors from conversion.
Agreed it was compressor stations that he was referring to. Yes, it was Rick Perry, but he was a Sec of Energy and a Gov of Texas, so he should know what he is talking about.
Patrick Michaels, Is the 20% in this paragraph supposed to be 2%? The math would then be 27% – 2% = 25%.
Pingback: Dubious climate science about the Texas cold disaster – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Dubious climate science about the Texas cold disaster |
(27-20)/7=.259
Oops
(27-20)/27=.259
“I’ve always had trouble with the notion that warming causes cooling. ”
Warming leads to increased snowfall.
Thousands of articles prove this is true
Japan Meteorological Agency 2016, Quora, the Conversation, Skeptikal science and WUWT.
More water in the atmosphere, more rainfall, more evaporation. Evaporation causes cooling.
Sea level rise causes coral bleaching
[by drowning them.]
Sea level rise: may lead to increases in sedimentation for reefs located near land-based sources of sediment. Sedimentation runoff can lead to the smothering of coral.
More clouds giving more albedo causes rising temperatures.
All the heat goes scuba diving in the ocean for years.
So have I.
Strictly speaking, warmer oceans in the northern hemisphere produce more snow during the winter stratospheric polar vortex. An example is the recent record snowfall in Greenland, which brought the remnants of a hurricane Larry.
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20210914.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/09/13/2200Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-325.54,90.72,372
A clear temperature drop in the Niño 4 region, foreshadowing full La Niña conditions in October ( Niño 3.4 from -05 to -0.8 C).
We need snowfall data, and such data are available for the Northern Hemisphere, from the Rutgers University snow lab.
They present three charts:
Fall, Winter and Spring N.H. snowfall.
If you add up all three charts, using the linear trend lines, there is no obvious increasing or decreasing trend since the 1960s.
Charts can be accessed from the link below:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
I am writing about the winter season, and this data is clear.
http://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg
I am writing about the season of polar vortex activity.
Summer snow has been falling lately mostly in Greenland.
https://i.ibb.co/BnjhvNy/SMB-curves-LA-EN-20210912.png
In the graphic below, you can see that the stratospheric polar vortex is already affecting weather in the Northern Hemisphere, and this influence will strengthen through winter.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
Pingback: Dubious climate science about the Texas cold disaster – Climate- Science.press
It stands to reason that ice ages are caused by global warming.
Warming of the planet makes it get colder.
Cooling of the planet makes it get warmer.
Or something like that.
You forgot to mention that climate change is racist.
Interestingly, so is California climate change policy: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/12/15/californias-natural-gas-bans-are-drawing-fire-from-black-and-latino-leaders/?sh=6f1dca8b57d3
North America’s first autumn stratospheric intrusion could occur in as little as four-five days on the West Coast. Remember, ozone in the tropopause does not warm the surface, quite the opposite, it gives off heat to space.
https://i.ibb.co/n75YGjX/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f120.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
A very weak solar wind does not provide a chance for a latitudinal jet stream.
https://i.ibb.co/wSf61BK/onlinequery.gif
The VOSTOK ICE CORE has been rising over the last 18,000 years. The CO2 level is rising over the same period. WHY IS THE THERE NO GLOBAL COOLING?????
COULD IT BE THAT OVER THAT PERIOD THE OCEANS ROSE FORMING THE ICE SHELF?????
About 10,000 years ago the earth began to lose more heat to the black sky than it retained from the sun. The ocean began to drop.
IT IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! IT IS GLOBAL ICE MAKING AND GLOBAL ICE MELTING!!!!!
I am listening to SENATE hearing of the HERO LADY SWIMMERS testify in front of the POLITITIONS responsible for what they went thru.
Now we can see why they spent 4 years trying to impeach President Trump.
California showed us yesterday how much power the corrupt elite in this country have.
I wonder if the authors would have felt the urge to explore the Texas cold event without the resulting power outage emergency.
I am about as much of a layman as you can get, save for a few weather and math courses in college and a long term interest in the subject, with casual perusal of climate and weather information, but some things seem just too obviously silly to ignore. The idea that you can ascribe a very short term extreme weather event with some contrived mathematical model is not supportable, by common sense at least, in a chaotic system like Earth’s climate, Who knows what caused a week-long ripple in the Northern Hemisphere westerlies. I know for a fact a very similar cold outbreak hit the southern plains and my state of Oklahoma some 38 years earlier. By the way Oklahoma escaped the Texas sized disaster just by the “hair on our chinny chin chins” – the problem here was a spot shortage of natural gas, ( accompanied by a huge price spike.which citizens will be paying for over the next several decades). Go figure what caused that shortage .Lot more wind turbines now, though.
I always appreciate Dr. Curry’s views and those of her posters and look forward to more of the same expert back and forth comments.
For North America, the temperature over the Chukchi Sea is important because with the circulation blocked over the Bering Sea, the jet stream will run from Siberia over the Chukchi Sea.
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r02_Chukchi_Sea_ts_4km.png
I love your equations :-)
You can follow this regularly.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=alaska×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
In the Canadian Archipelago, ice is already growing.
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r09_Canadian_Archipelago_ts_4km.png
Sorry to digress, but I am concerned that a seemingly harmless tropical storm that is approaching the east coast of the US could bring very heavy rainfall to the eastern US.
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r09_Canadian_Archipelago_ts_4km.png
Sorry.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Well Europe’s energy consumers have a simple choice:
Nordstream ga$ or freeze yer a$$ !!
solar wind drives climate, not CO2
https://opagos.tumblr.com/post/662000091855568896/solar-wind-drives-climate-not-co2
CO2 is controlled by the green foliage. As the oceans rose there was less green foliage. After man discovered fire then nature had competition.
I would posit that the increase in Northern Hemisphere Autumn snow extent since 1995 is due to weaker solar wind states increasing negative NAO/AO conditions and driving a warmer AMO, both which reduce the sea ice extent. And that slow solar wind episodes are directly associated with the negative NAO/AO anomalies at an event level.
The narrative that AWG induced reduced sea ice extent or increased snow cover is causing negative AO conditions, will be well out of steam when the AMO next shifts properly colder.
Willard, I don’t get your complaint. The MiMA model is hardly fit for this purpose. Don’t you think it’s a little weird to paint anomalous snowcover into a GCM that has no clouds? And then run a purportedly dynamic simulation with a constant albedo (except for the artificially jacked Siberian values). The last I heard, PSV intrusions are a winter process, where the albedo of the is sure as heck a lot larger than it is in summer. The authors simply assert that MiMA is fit for purpose without any direct evidence I can find, so this paper naturally tripped my BS-meter.
Pat,
I agree with you: you don’t get it.
You wrote a “Reviewer 2” rant. Besides the large amount of incredulity it contains (which you repeat now) your rant includes a jab at the motivation of your target. My point is related to that aspect of your Reviewer 2 rant.
You are writing your Reviewer 2 rant at Judy’s, a known contrarian blog. The curator of that blog operates a company selling forecasting services. You yourself are a known Freedom Fighter think tank talking head.
To borrow what you once said, that kind of jab can get yourselves “killed.”
Don’t go there.
Is that clearer?
I don’t think you get it.
Pat Michael’s comment re Cohen’s motivation is in the context that Cohen is producing a poorly reasoned and argued, specious claim with weak, insufficient and seemingly implausible supporting evidence and methods. If you go to the link in the “offending” passage you see that Cohen’s site seems to rely heavily on this lightly buttressed claim.
Had Cohen provided a powerful, compelling and convincing case it seems highly unlikely his motivation would have been questioned. But when you advertise your whole service as being based upon this theory and then you claim a single event in a particular place in one particular month occurred because of the dubious theory, of course the motivation is relevant because it is directly linked to the theory in question.
Do you have anything useful to say or criticize regarding Pat Michaels straightforward and reasonable critique of Cohen’s claims? Cohen as far as I know is a very smart and capable scientist and may at some point prove his theory is remarkably on point. But as of now, Michael’s criticism seems more on point than Cohen.
Oh, BrianB.
Doubling down on Pat’s Reviewer 2 rant simply does not cut it.
One does not simply justify one’s action because one is right.
Assuming that Pat is right.
Have you checked?
That’s what I thought.
Willard,
Are you wanting to repress scientific debate, yes or no? Geoff S
Willard: Doubling down on Pat’s Reviewer 2 rant simply does not cut it.
One does not simply justify one’s action because one is right.
Assuming that Pat is right.
Have you checked?
Have you found any errors in Pat’s essay — if so, could you cite a few? Could you quote a few excerpts to justify calling it a “rant” rather than a “critique”?
Willard: Besides the large amount of incredulity it contains
Are you besmirching scientific skepticism? The fact is that Cohen et al used an analysis procedure that is highly likely to produce unreliable results, and their specific result was never tested against out-of-sample data.
You’re the fifth Denizen who tries to distract me from the point I’m making, Matt Stat. You above all of them ought to know that there’s no need to check a Reviewer 2 rant. Besides, incredulity is just that, incredulity:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121031114939/http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/
I’ve always had trouble with the notion that skepticism could be powered by incredulity.
If analysis 1 uses incredulous means for determination, it stands to reason that good epistemic logic by reviewer 1, et al, point out where any lack of credulity exists. This challenge of course represents its own basis for incredulity by the bleacher seat crowd.
It stands to reason that the one who needs to scratch is the one who itches.
It’s more a matter of responsibility than causality, however. Denizens will try anything before they own their responsibility. They may Just Ask Questions. They may voice incredulity. They may ask sammiches. They may pontificate on or ironize about what stands to reason. Sometimes they even channel their inner Chewbacca and declare that nothing makes sense!
Willard: You’re the fifth Denizen who tries to distract me from the point I’m making, Matt Stat.
If you made a point I missed it. Hence my request for quotes from Pat’s essay.
As to “incredulity” as a possibly pejorative synonym for skepticism, all claims should be met with incredulity until backed up by stringent tests of the hypotheses. Everybody has read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, wherein Thomas Kuhn pointed out that most scientific claims are false.
Cohen et al used an unreliable analysis method. Their result should not be believed until predictions from it are tested by comparison with out of sample data.
Was it you who admitted to not understanding technical arguments?
> If you made a point I missed it.
It’s right above your own comment, Matt. In fact your comment responds to it:
Is that clearer?
You sound like you’re expressing incredulity, Bingo. “Responsibility” is a good word though. You were asked a question: “Have you found any errors in Pat’s essay”. It would require less exhaustive scratching energy used in your circular exchanges if you could just put the itch to rest instead. So why do you always insist on staying in the shallow end of the wading pool, spattering about?
I don’t, Trunks. But of course, as a Denizen who is above all the Climate Ball, you will try to suggest that I do without paying any diligence to what I’m saying. Since I’m here I might as well correct Matt’s strawman:
The point of the post I cited earlier was exactly the opposite: I argued that skepticism had very little to do with appeals to incredulity!
Had I no experience with contrarians, I might have a hard time to believe their currect reactions, including yours. Since I have some experience with them, I don’t. Ankle biting and piling on is here to stay.
Willard: You are writing your Reviewer 2 rant at Judy’s, a known contrarian blog. The curator of that blog operates a company selling forecasting services. You yourself are a known Freedom Fighter think tank talking head.
To borrow what you once said, that kind of jab can get yourselves “killed.”
Don’t go there.
If that contains a point, what is the point?
> If that contains a point what is the point?
It’s hard to play dumb and smug at the same time, Matt. The point is quite simple: Pat is writing a Reviewer 2 rant at Judy’s, a known contrarian blog. The curator of that blog operates a company selling forecasting services. Pat is himself a known Freedom Fighter think tank talking head.
Pat is therefore in no position to impugn motive on anyone.
What goes for the goose goes for the glass house. More generally, everything you say can be said or done against you, on the Climate Ball field or elsewhere. Relatedly:
https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/15396965101
Ah, the good ol’ days.
Willard: It’s hard to play dumb and smug at the same time, Matt. The point is quite simple: Pat is writing a Reviewer 2 rant at Judy’s, a known contrarian blog. The curator of that blog operates a company selling forecasting services. Pat is himself a known Freedom Fighter think tank talking head.
Pat is therefore in no position to impugn motive on anyone.
The conclusion does not follow. The most you can conclude is the conjecture that Pat might have a motive. His reading of the article and supporting material puts him “in position” to conjecture that the authors have a motive. Even if correct, it does not imply that anything Pat wrote is in error.
You have not justified your claim that Pat wrote a “rant”. I conjecture that you do not understand any of the technical points.
I don’t put much stock in conjectures about motives, because they are unreliable, and seldom relevant to understanding or evaluating whether any particular propositions are true. Same is true, of course, of Pat’s conjecture about Judah’s motives.
So get back on point: did Pat write anything false or unsubstantiated? My reading of Pat and Judah is that Pat is correct. Judah’ et al should not be believed until their hypothesis has been tested against out-of-sample data.
I have a comment about private sector motives. Judah Cohen and myself stake the reputation of ourselves and our company on each forecast. Seasonal forecasts are easily verified a few months later.
This is very different from academic motives, who are increasingly looking for the big publication and the headline, and no one cares if they are shown to be wrong weeks later.
> The most you can conclude is the conjecture that Pat might have a motive.
Incorrect. The conclusion isn’t that Pat’s opponents therefore know Pat’s motives, but that he’s in no position to do so. Nobody
Knowing Pat’s mind states is irrelevant. He could be a bot and my argument would still hold. Only Pat does matters here. As soon as he impugns motives, he cautions his opponents to do the same. This will get every contrarian killed, starting with his host.
I can’t believe I need to tell you this. Do you have any kids?
> This is very different from academic motives, who are increasingly looking for the big publication and the headline, and no one cares if they are shown to be wrong weeks later.
You heard it first at Judy’s!
No one cares about Reviewer 2 rants on a blog, except those excited by the red meat thrown.
Judith –
Surely, a large part of your ability to establish your professional reputation is based on your ability to leverage your academic status, and at some level any forecasting errors you make (which would have to be inevitable to some extent) will be weighed against your perceived academic reputation.
It always stikes me as interesting that someone who so clearly has monetized her academic stature for decades (both within and outside of academia) further builds her reputation via her activities as a “contrarian” academic.
> I have a comment about private sector motives. Judah Cohen and myself stake the reputation of ourselves and our company on each forecast. Seasonal forecasts are easily verified a few months later.
>> This is very different from academic motives, who are increasingly looking for the big publication and the headline, and no one cares if they are shown to be wrong weeks later.
I’m so glad I read this. Now I know why we NEVER see errors or outright fraud in the private sector.
And before I get attacked… let me state explicitly.
I don’t question Judith’s motives. I assume she is primarily motivated by a desire to be correct in her opinions. Just as much as the next person (whose interior motivations I can’t actually know).
My point is that it’s (1) weak to argue against a person’s opinions by making assumptions about their motivations (when you can’t actually know what they are) and, (2) perhaps even weaker to invent reasons and categories for why your motives shouldn’t be questioned, while the motives of those who have opinions different than your own are fair game.
Identity-oriented antipathy is always suspect, imo.
Willard: I can’t believe I need to tell you this. Do you have any kids?
It’s your right to believe that what you write makes sense, and I guess you do.
My kids are ages 35+, and have interesting jobs in the tech sector of the economy. How that relates to the truth of any of Pat’s propositions you are free to elaborate.
What I’m saying shouldn’t be that hard to get, Matt:
Whatever you said or did to your children, they can do or say in return to you. The only time this does not apply is when you can invoke parental authority. This kind of authority is irrelevant here, as science is meant to be a symmetrical game.
If Pat probes interests (note: not motivations, but interests), he can’t whine if his own interests are being probed.
Willard: Whatever you said or did to your children, they can do or say in return to you.
And this is relevant to Pat’s essay how?
The sentence is from Pat’s essay, Matt. Let’s see if you can get that I can see how manipulative is your line of questioning:
Are you suggesting that Pat should remove the sentence I criticize because it has no business in his Reviewer 2 rant?
Poor wee willie is a fanatical cultural warrior whose professed objective is talking past contrarians while waiting for the AI economic overlord to direct global production and consumption. He and Joshua are less interested – rather not at all – in natural sciences but in trifling diversions from critical discourse. They are incapable of addressing the post and repeat obsessively the same irrelevant complaints and insults – they should be culled relentlessly. Incessant repetition should be grounds for moderation.
There’s no need to address a Reviewer 2 rant, Chief.
Thank you for this comment. I will add them to your contribution to the natural sciences.
> Incessant repetition should be grounds for moderation.
Oh, and why not:
YOUR HEARD THAT FROM CHIEF!!!!11
Managing the interface between natural systems and human development has been the primary focus of my life.
Por wee willies only talent is for silly games.
Right now you’re more trying to manage the halls of this blog right now, Chief. Soon enough you’ll return to spamming. That’s how you always win every thread!
But this is a game where I have an advantage over poor wee willie. I know his moves. He has so few of them – none of them science. And so he whines about losing.
You know my moves so well that you need to repeat your strawman about some fanatical cultural warrior whose professed objective is talking past contrarians while waiting for the AI economic overlord to direct global production and consumption, Chief.
That you’re being enabled is the only reason why you win by spamming.
> YOUR HEARD THAT FROM CHIEF!!!!11
Lol. Always the Chief of unintentional irony.
The strategy of these cultural warriors is to advance public acceptance of economic and social transformation with faith in the certainty of a catastrophic science that cannot exist. Attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic causes is a key objective. Not knowing any science – Joshua and poor wee willie are reduced to repeating the same calumny incessantly in the irrational belief that it advances their cause.
Get over yourself, Chief. This is just a blog. Western Civilization does not rest on your shoulders. Your shining armor slows you down. It’s so passé!
What you need is a quote, a link, and a video.
Now’s your chance.
> Get over yourself, Chief.
Will never happen. Never. Just not in his makeup.
Blog wars against enemies must be fought by noble heroes.
Not true. Blog wars are fought by ignorant weasels. If you want to know what they are agin.
I’m not agin, Chief. You’re agin:
‘You yourself are a known Freedom Fighter think tank talking head.’ poor wee willie
Poor wee willie routinely uses the term as denigration. And cites Braveheart rather than the US constitution. Some people have no serious intent.
The AI overlords make me do it, Chief:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/freedom-fighters/
So once again you butt in an exchange for your silly signaling.
Poor wee willie doesn’t do ‘exchanges’. Talking past contrarians as a gambit is to be found on his Tumblr site. The AI overlord was seriously advanced by poor wee willie as a way of doing away with markets. Computers can save the planet by directing production and consumption. There is an obvious cultural divide never to be bridged between free markets and neo-socialists.
Every comment by poor wee willie is an odd angry shot recycled endlessly in his fanatical culture war. We may as well recognise it for what it is.
Willard: “Don’t go there.”
Do as I say, not as I do.
Chief –
> Every comment by [X] is an odd angry shot recycled endlessly in his fanatical culture war. We may as well recognise it for what it is.
Now who is the first person that comes to mind there?
Tell the truth. Are you a Poe?
Says Joshua with unintended irony. The game is afoot, the moves are ridicule and denigration and we should understand the rules.
‘Alinsky would find an external antagonist to turn into a “common enemy” for the community within which he was operating. Often, this would be a local politician or agency that had some involvement with activity concerning the community. Once the enemy was established, the community would come together in opposition of it. This management of conflict heightened awareness within the community as to the similarities its members shared as well as what differentiated them from those outside of their organization.[4] The use of conflict also allowed for the goal of the group to be clearly defined. With an established external antagonist, the community’s goal would be to defeat that enemy.[4]’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
We have seen the enemy and it is us. It includes me for suggesting that innovative and entrepreneurial responses to greenhouse gas emissions are far more likely to be effective than top down imposition by government.
They have failed and will continue to fail. Do they imagine that disrupting CE with incessant pettifogging plaints will turn that around?
[CHIEF] the moves are ridicule and denigration
[ALSO CHIEF] Poor wee willie doesn’t do ‘exchanges’. Talking past contrarians as a gambit is to be found on his Tumblr site. The AI overlord was seriously advanced by poor wee willie as a way of doing away with markets. Computers can save the planet by directing production and consumption. There is an obvious cultural divide never to be bridged between free markets and neo-socialists.
The funny thing is I’d never heard of Alinsky until I began to be told over and over that I’m following his rules.
> We have seen the enemy and it is us. It includes me for suggesting that innovative and entrepreneurial responses to greenhouse gas emissions are far more likely to be effective than top down imposition by government.
I have never. EVER. said anything negative about you (or anyone else) suggesting innovative and entrepreneurial responses to GHG emissions
Not once.
Nope.
Not once.
But then again, you have long enjoyed fantasizing about me, particularly when somehow it furthers your delusions of grandeur.
Joshua | September 17, 2021 at 8:25 pm |
You have gone up in everyone’s estimation.
“I have never.
EVER.
said anything negative about you (or anyone else)
Not once.
Nope.
Not once.””
I didn’t leave anything out, did I?
Negative things seem to be your forte of late.
Try to be constructive and helpful, please.
amgech –
I’m quite critical of arguments that I think fail. Of course at any time my criticisms can be wrong.
I don’t typically criticize individuals although I recognize that distinction has some limited utility.
I’m more likely to be critical of groups, but try to remember to caveat those criticisms, e. g., some “skeptics.”
I don’t feel any particular reason to think there’s anything wrong about criticizing arguments. I welcome criticism of my arguments, as long as they are made in good faith.
Anytime I mess up and criticize individuals (at least because of arguments they’ve made) or groups without caveats, I’m more than happy to acknowledge there are a number of reasons why that’s almost always facile, fallacious, and counterproductive.
And none of that makes your arguments any less bad, unfortunately.
I forgit to mention…
I do make exceptions for people like Chief, or a Don Montfort, or a David Young, or other commenters who clearly aren’t interested in good faith exchange at any level. You know, the ones who just can’t get past their fantasies about me as Chief just displayed, or xaim to not read my comments when obviously they do, or constantly insult me, etc.
For them, there’s zero chance of productive dialog anyway, so while ecdn there I try to remember to avoid personal criticisms, and instead to focus on their arguments, I don’t see any particular reason to hold myself accountable when I forget.
Alinski’s rules for radicals are subsumed in Janis’ signs of groupthink that in turn are indistinguishable from neo-socialist progressive shibboleths. Does anyone expect good faith dialogue from Joshua or poor wee willie? It has never happened. Every comment after empty incessantly obsessive comment.
They have busied themselves under this post impugning motive and character without a scintilla of science. What they collectively need is climate catastrophe to create momentum for social and economic transformation. Any suggestion that it may not be all that immediately catastrophic is a threat to the narrative that needs must be countered with all that they have. Shallow sophistry and denigration.
Does any denizen doubt this underlying climate war social dynamic?
> busied themselves under this post impugning motive
That’s, like, false, Chief.
I see you haven’t discussed the topic of Pat’s Reviewer 2 rant in this thread. So look who’s busing himself now!
Shine a light on it and they take cover in deceit.
Chief –
I love how you say just totally false sh1t, obviously just built on fantasizing about me, and then just carrying on as if it never happened. Here read this again:
> We have seen the enemy and it is us. It includes me for suggesting that innovative and entrepreneurial responses to greenhouse gas emissions are far more likely to be effective than top down imposition by government.
I have never. EVER. said anything negative about you (or anyone else) suggesting innovative and entrepreneurial responses to GHG emissions
Not once.
Nope.
Not once.
And please, don’t sulley Pogo’s good name by quoting him. He deserves better fate than that.
Chief –
You always have been, and always will be, the chief of unintentional irony
-snip-
Cartoonist Walt Kelly, modified Commodore Perry’s quote to, “We have met the enemy and he is us,” in a cartoon he created in 1970 celebrating the first Earth Day in 1970. The message being that man – from his treatment of the earth – is the planet’s enemy.May 7, 2018
As I have said, I have a masters degree in environmental science. I have spent a life conserving ecologies and an eternity – or what seems like it – with Joshua’s denials of what I didn’t say he said. In all the verbiage he doesn’t say much. And what there is is not worth reading. I generally don’t. And I’m don’t know why he can’t take my word on that.
Only rich economies can afford environments. Innovative and entrepreneurial communities – the basis of which are the norms of economic freedom – provide solutions that Joshua avoids. I have written about polycentric management of commons, conservation and restoration of soils and ecosystems, building resilient infrastructure and developing nuclear engines. They want none of it.
Joshua | September 18, 2021
Cartoonist Walt Kelly, modified Commodore Perry’s quote to, “We have met the enemy and he is us,” in a cartoon he created in 1970 celebrating the first Earth Day in 1970.
–
Now this is good blogging, Joshua.
I have a Pogo comic about “We have met the enemy and he is us,”
And I felt it dated back to well before 1970 but could be wrong.
We could playfully try to attach some characteristics to denizens of the swamp but I fear it would lead to you, Willard and I ending up as the bat boys and the chief more as Albert the Alligator.
On second thoughts I will just leave it there so as not to offend anyone.
Chief –
What explains why you do boldly make statements that simply aren’t true?
First you say:
> We have seen the enemy and it is us. It includes me for suggesting that innovative and entrepreneurial responses to greenhouse gas emissions are far more likely to be effective than top down imposition by government.
I point out that statement is false. I have NEVER criticized YOU or ANYONE ELSE for suggesting innovative and entrepreneurial responses to GHGs. Not you. Not anyone else. EVER. If you think you can find a comment where I did, have at it. Search all you like. But you won’t find it. Ever.
Then you go on to say I was wrong when I say what you said, WHEN I QUOTED WHAT YOU SAID, and claim you didn’t say it (despite being quoted).
> – with Joshua’s denials of what I didn’t say..
You said it, Chief. You were wrong. Maybe you’re embarrassed, and have trouble acknowledging that you were wrong. It would fit with your narcissisric tendencies. It’s really not that big a deal, though. You’re wrong frequently.
But why do you just go ahead and make wrong statements, and then deny that you made them, when it’s so easy to show that you said what you said?
Such odd behavior. Reminds me of when you claim to not read my comments and then read them and respond to them.
Such odd behavior.
We have seen the enemy and it is not them but us. Pat Michaels and Judith Curry are assumed to be be on the wrong side of climate science. They are therefore targets for cancelling on some spurious point or other.
Chief –
Neither Judith nor Pat nor you are my enemy. Stop fantasizing.
Identifying protagonists – catastrophists and contrarians – in the climate war is just being realistic. That Joshua is a catastrophist seems evident – but also as unimportant as Joshua himself. The larger picture is of cultural groupings. Climate warriors on both sides. The cultural left assuming on the basis of weather memes – to get back to the post – that climate science justifies an agenda of social and economic transformation – while commonly dissembling about their true intentions – or else thinking magically and demanding everyone else does the same in the name of science. The cultural right – of course assuming that large changes wrought by people in the Earth system are inevitably benign.
True progress is to be made in innovative and entrepreneurial cultures in efficient free market economies with solid economic growth. I doubt I am wrong in putting Joshua in the camp of the cultural left who fundamentally object to anything less than a totalitarian technocracy running everything – under the rubric of poor wee willie’s AI economic overlord. Let Joshua deny it. I do admit to being surprised that he didn’t repeat the butt hurt accusation made many times in the past. Weird as that is it’s his best argument.
So you are of the socialist left but don’t think that climate change is an existential threat sometime this century that can only be dealt with by draconian government regulation? Or that capitalism is the problem and not the solution? Get serious.
We are the other in Joshua’s little world and he has still not fessed up.
There is a class of protagonist in the climate war who are quite keen on catastrophic weather as a justification for social and economic transformation. I’m never quite sure what that means – other than poor wee willie’s hilarious AI economic overlord. That capitalism is the problem and that the solution – contrary to experience – is government. From years of exposure I put Joshua absolutely in that camp. He may deny it – or more likely evade – but I wouldn’t believe it.
Joshua imagines that I pore over his every word. I barely glance at the comments I respond to. It is all the same ole garbage he invariably indulges in. I am not about to suffer the tedium of reviewing vast numbers of past comments when he could just either fess up or deny that he is in that neo-socialist camp. What’s it to be Joshua? Truth or dare?
These AI overlords sure have premium rent in your cosmogony, Chief.
I discussed Hayek’s problem of knowledge in markets – from which comes his analysis of the failure of centralised planning. Billions of consumers and millions of suppliers. Poor wee willie thinks that computers could do the job. It might be a cliché but I can’t make this up.
I have been pondering what if anything to write here. While keeping it on topic, fresh and pertinent. The problem in my view boils down to the limits of scientific knowledge. The earth system is a problem in fluid dynamics. Driven by planetary rotation, modulated by energy flow and heat distribution and subject to intense and rapid shifts in emergent spatiotemporal chaotic patterns of ‘quasi standing waves’. When divested of simple cause and effect future tipping points are inevitable – but who is to say what their cause will be. In such a coupled, chaotic, nonlinear system identifying anthropogenic causes against a backdrop of intense natural variability is beyond the limits of current science. Any claim to have done so is – ipso facto – dubious science.
In such cases, Judith’s wicked problems.
The approach may be to just do the best you can with the bulk of the science and leave the scary but rare stuff aside.
” In such a coupled, chaotic, nonlinear system identifying anthropogenic causes against a backdrop of intense natural variability is beyond the limits of current science.”
This does not mean that you cannot try to look with the caveat that it might not be correct occasionally.
For instance if the chaos results in a return to 1970’s style temperatures and sea ice extent where does it leave our knowledge and beliefs?
Skeptics would claim they were right.
AGW types would suddenly become interested in your ideas and claim it was just a correction due to amazingly, natural variation.
Your argument would still be valid but most people would still not understand it or validate it.
Imagining that tipping points are rare might be comforting but it is not true.
Imagining that tipping points are rare might be comforting but it is not true.
True tipping points in particular situations are rare and usually not known until they happen.
That is why they are called tipping points.
If they happened every second you would have to use some other sort of description.
Many things happen that are unexpected down to the toss of a coin but to compare the mundane tipping points to the ones we are talking about is a misuse of the terminology.
13 Spades is a rare hand equivalent to a tipping point in bridge.
Every other hand possible though is just as rare but never causes marvel or disbelief.
Tipping points are not random events like the toss of a coin or a hand of cards dealt. They emerge as shifts in spatiotemporal fractal patterns in fluid flow dynamics. At the scale of planetary waves we have the major chaotic oscillators that drive the dynamically complex interaction of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, cyrosphere and biosphere – to emergent states.
But the point was the limits of knowledge in a naturally variable system. You seem to agree.
Yet another series of interesting exchanges that are well worth the read between RIE and angech. Thanks to you guys once again for keeping threads honest when others simply cannot resist their banal attempts to appear superior.
Is the term tipping point misunderstood, abused, or superfluous? Nature appears to have infinite tipping points, events over which it has no control and no ‘real’ predetermined outcome influence. As an example, which sperm gets to fertilize an egg by winning the race? We may call it the ‘fittest one’ because it won, but we have no idea what happened during the race. How many tipping points were there during that race? Would the event have been any more unique had another sperm won?
What we seem to be doing in much environmental and climate science is looking out for ‘catastrophic events’ which we believe prove the harm we are doing on Earth when such events may be very regular on billions of years timescales. Life is naturally risk averse until it is dead and doesn’t ever knowingly present as a sitting duck even if nature can see it as such when it is being spectacularly ‘destructive’.
The Bridge hand analogy used by angech is, IMO, a perfect description of our failure to see tipping points in everyday events – the tipping points that make everything look and feel normal – when actually everything around us is unique because it cannot ever have happened in exact likeness before. As angech says every deal of a pack of cards is potentially unique, as is every coin toss etc., but to a gambler standing to lose a lot of money each may prove to be a tipping point.
“Yet another series of interesting exchanges that are well worth the read between RIE and angech. ”
–
Thank you for the compliment to both of us.
And your comments.
RIE is much more up to speed on the science particularly with reference to chaos theory and tipping points.
He also has that lovely knack of being able to back up his comments with appropriate references.
“Is the term tipping point misunderstood, abused, or superfluous? Nature appears to have infinite tipping points.”
“our failure to see tipping points in everyday events”
All three.
Most important tipping points are usually only recognized well after they happen, not before or during.
People can also see tipping points when they believe in them or want them to happen.
A measure of what I would call the likelihood of AGW being real.
Simply take the Arctic ice Jaxa sea ice area for the last 43* years as gospel.
If AGW is real the sea ice should decrease every year as it warms.
If we take this year where the lowest extent was 11th we can do a simple percentage
11/43 is roughly a 75% chance AGW is real.
If we have a series of years where it is the lowest we can use that to say it is 99% real.
On the other hand, if it ever returns to 1979 values we could say it is 99% certain that the theory is wrong.
438 years thereabouts, whatever the reliable satellite figures are.
AGW is real and it is caused by people. Says so in the name.
I like your thought:, Mr. Ellison:
“AGW is real and it is caused by people. Says so in the name.”
For those with no spare time to read the latest IPCC report, which is really about imaginary future CAGW, not AGW, here is my summary, which also applies to every other IPCC report in past decades:
After assuming all climate change is man made, and dangerous, we have concluded that climate change is man made, and dangerous.
PS:
Please don’t waste more time fighting with Willard.
He is a lost cause
Richard Greene to Mr. Ellison:
“PS:
Please don’t waste more time fighting with Willard.
He is a lost cause”
It is more like watching young puppies or kittens at play sharpening their claws and teeth.
All playful, Little nips and scratches here and there. Occasionally and accidental [?] bite and things get a bit rough for a while.
Having Willard, Nick Stokes and Mosher [the good old days] commentating meant the subjects under discussion were relevant, interesting and upsetting [ie true against] certain established but obviously false AGW facts.
No Willard means no controversy.
I don’t think either of them mind playing with each other.
AGW is a lost cause”
“AGW is real and it is caused by people. Says so in the name.”
That would be a RAGW.
Angech: Radiative transfer calculations show that rising CO2 slows radiative cooling to space. The law of conservation of energy demands that our climate system warm somewhere below the TOA until outgoing and incoming fluxes are in balance. However, rising CO2 slows radiative cooling to space only because temperature falls with altitude where most thermal infrared photons are being absorbed. Antarctica is the one place on the planet where temperature increases with altitude winter (but decreases with altitude in the summer). To some extent, Antarctica is cut off from the rest of the planet by circumpolar winds and current and doesn’t show much, if any, warming. Air subsides over Antarctica and cold winds freezes the sea ice around the continent. So the phenomena you note are perfectly consistent with the AGW hypothesis – but this complications are not highly publicized. (The consensus wants the public to think AGW is caused by simple trapping of heat by GHGs that anyone can understand.)
Franktoo | September 17, 2021
Thank you for your response
“Radiative transfer calculations show that rising CO2 slows radiative cooling to space.”
An interesting comment.
Radiative cooling is the process by which a body loses heat by thermal radiation. As Planck’s law describes, every physical body spontaneously and continuously emits electromagnetic radiation.
How does CO2 stop or slow other particles emitting radiation?
It cannot.
As far as I am aware all of the radiation that comes in is supposed to go out.
Think about that.
If energy comes in it goes out at the same rate.
Physics.
“The law of conservation of energy demands that our climate system warm somewhere below the TOA until outgoing and incoming fluxes are in balance”.
No.
Remember that the TOA by definition is where the fluxes are always balanced.
Hence energy is always balanced.
By definition.
What people are confusing is the idea that heat can be trapped anywhere in a system.
Because they see different substances at different temperatures and think they have the same energy.
Again with the unreal analogies.
The earth .
No energy for a day, no sun for a day very cold.
Turn on the sun
How many Hiroshima bombs hit the earth in 8 minutes?
How much does this heat up the atmosphere and the earth surface and the top of the by now frozen oceans?
Lets say 100 million.
Within 8 minutes .
Look at the next 8 minutes,
another 100 million in but also 100 million out.
How is that possible.
Planck.
What temperatures do we see.
Boiling oceans and hell like atmosphere on the sunny side.
116C on land. Clouds everywhere.
Get a lot of clouds at 116C on ice.
1364 W/M squared all in
Average temp of globe ? 255C and rising
After 24 hours
still 100 million in and out every 8 minutes.
but now a rearrangement of the deck chairs.
Instead of one very cold segment super heating we have a spread of radiatively warmer molecules. We have GHG in the air intercepting IR from the sun and radiating it back out.
Not storing heat. They merely emit what they get in and have to be at that temperature to do so.
Going down it is now less hot locally as convection spreads the areas losing the heat out.
100 million bombs in 8 minutes is the sort of energy flow that needs objects at our current earth temperature to do so. Bingo.
In 24 hours we have a reconstituted earth atmosphere strangely identical to what we have now.
Further spread of the energy levels of the emitting molecules leads to slow glacier melting and warming seas at the expense of cooling earth land surface and atmospheric warmth.
While ultimately energy out will equal energy in – and the system will tend to energy equilibrium at TOA due to the Planck feedback – warming and cooling of the planet is due to energy imbalances.
d(heat&work)/dt = energy in – energy out
Warming implies that more energy is being retained in the system.
Robert I. Ellison | September 18, 2021
Thanks for putting up the conventional and most likely correct viewpoint.
“While ultimately energy out will equal energy in – and the system will tend to energy equilibrium at TOA due to the Planck feedback – warming and cooling of the planet is due to energy imbalances.
d(heat&work)/dt = energy in – energy out
Warming implies that more energy is being retained in the system.”
How is energy retained in a system?
How can energy be retained in a system?
Any system that is above 0 K releases energy until it has no more it is able to release.
There are no batteries.
No storage systems and no way to slow down EM flow at the micro level.
Heat comes in, Heat goes out.
What you claim is retained energy does not and cannot exist.
Why do you think a surface has extra energy?
Surfaces go to the emission temperature for the energy they have both naturally and received.
They cannot store it or make it.
It is either in them [and will go out] Or coming into them, in which case it gores to the right temperature to go out.
What people see is a hot seat in the sun and they say there is energy stored in that.
There is energy and it has a temperature for that energy but it is never storing extra energy.
The warming seat only implies that it has received extra energy and is about to release it.
Measure it and you say it is warmer.
But not from any stored extra energy, just the energy it is about to put out.
Oceans store most of the heat in the system.
Robert I. Ellison | September 18, 2021 at 3:52 am |
“Oceans store most of the heat in the system.”
No.
No storage whatever.
Take a cannon ball. where does it store heat?
Nowhere.
Take a block of ice where does it store heat?
Nowhere.
No batteries.
Now take a kilometer block of ocean where does it store heat.
Magically, because it is warmer than the ice block, it must be storing heat?
No.
No batteries. No storage mechanism’
Take any non self heating object and show me and yourself exactly where this heat is stored.
The oceans receive 2/3 of the heat as 2/3 of the surface area.
The heated part is only a thin skim on the top of deep cool naturally conducting and radiating water molecules not heated by the sun.
The sun provides enough energy in 8 minutes for it to have to get hotter [temperature wise] to release the extra energy that the sun has put in energy wise.
There is no stored energy.
The energy state you see is merely what it has to be for the energy that has has just come in from the sun and is going to go straight out again.
It is a massive amount of energy for a very small surface film on the surface film of the deeper oceans.
It is technically a nonequilibrium thermodynamic system. Energy flows in, the planet warms, heat is transported and flows out again. But it is not a steady state – if there is an imbalance in energy in and energy out for whatever reason the planet warms or cools. A warmer planet planet contains more energy and vice versa. Most planetary heat content – some 92% – is in oceans.
Heat is stored in water as internal energy at phase transitions – or in the kinetic energy of molecules.
“”But it is not a steady state – if there is an imbalance in energy in and energy out for whatever reason the planet warms or cools. A warmer planet planet contains more energy and vice versa. Most planetary heat content – some 92% – is in oceans.
Heat is stored in water as internal energy at phase transitions – or in the kinetic energy of molecules.”
But it is a steady state.
As you have repeated many times energy in equals energy out.
That is the definition of a steady state.
Take a tank of water full to the brim with a 1 inch pipe putting I litre of water extra in a minute.
The water runs out over the top 1 litre a minute.
There is no more water [energy] in the tank after 1 minute than when you started.
You have put more energy [water] in but that has all come out.
There is no magic storage of water or heat.
None.
Very hard to get this concept because it looks like there is more energy in the system as the system is radiating more heat.
But the water is active with force too, the water is moving, running over the edge
No batteries RE
No storage.
The bonds in the molecules can vibrate taking the energy in and stop when they put it out. What you measure as the temperature is the energy or heat that has already been lost [why it is heating up your thermometer.]
“Heat is stored in water as internal energy at phase transitions – or in the kinetic energy of molecules.”
“Heat is present in water as internal energy at phase transitions – or in the kinetic energy of molecules.”.
What makes you think it is stored?
Seriously.
If you take some water, under ideal conditions in space away from the sun.
Does it store its heat?
No.
The heat is always going out.
Always.
SB.
What gives the illusion that heat is being stored as you put it above?
Because it is only an illusion.
No batteries hiding in the phase transitions.
The reason you assume it is storing energy is because you conceive of it being in a glass or a lake or an ocean at earth conditions.
Every second it is having energy poured into it from the sun [the heat source for the earth]
and it is pouring out that energy to reach the steady state of its environment.
It is not storing it.
It has no storage.
Kinetic energy?
When an object is heated parts move faster.
Temperature definition.
Not energy.
Energy is mass of moving particles by temperature.
Every moving molecule leaves a somewhat slower and less vibrating group of surface molecules as the flip side. The energy comes in and out by IR .
The jiggling of part of the system is compensated by less movement elsewhere
I should see it as a frozen comet rather than water in the Earth system? Kinetic energy is energy as it moves through the system from the source to black space. You say there is a difference between energy stored and present in the system. Science demands simple and precise language – but this is a distinction without merit.
I’m happy.
I think the tank of water analogy is awesome
in explaining that energy input is not energy storage.
No batteries in nature.
Similar to the problem with attractive forces like gravity.
Someone has to find a lassoo, chuck it over an object, crank up an energy source and pull it in.
Too many steps.
People still believe in gravity pulling them down.
Much simply to have objects flow into empty space as per Einstein.
Water above absolute zero has a calculable energy content. Stretching analogies past breaking points is not science.
43* YEARS.
Before there was dubious climate science, there was dubious ozone science.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-8uZ
SOI is rising and the Niño 4 index is falling rapidly.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
In another week you’ll need a new chart.
You can already see the first blast of winter in the Rocky Mountains.
https://i.ibb.co/myNch1D/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f120.png
Snow in the US Rockies this morning. As I recall there was snow in the same region up through June, which means only 2 months without snow.
See comment earlier on this thread
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/14/dubious-climate-science-about-the-texas-cold-disaster/#comment-959797
Here are quotes from the comment.
See excerpts and Figures from the Paper at
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
“In Figure 4 the Roth & Joos Cosmogenic Index (CI) is used as the emergent proxy for the solar activity driver of the resulting emergent global and NH temperature data.
The CI designation here integrates changes in solar magnetic field strength, TSI, EUV, IMF, Solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, the BZ sign and changes in the GCR neutron count which modulates cloud cover and thus albedo.
The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends, of the combined effect of these solar and GCR drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Figure 4 shows an increase in CI of about 2 W/m 2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak. This increase, together with the other solar “activity” variations modulate the earth’s temperature and albedo via the GR flux and varying cloud cover.
The emergent temperature time series trends of the combined orbital, solar and GCR drivers also reflect turning points, changes of state and important threshold effects created by the interactions of the underlying physical processes. These exogenous forcings are also simultaneously modulated by changes in the earth’s magnetic field and length of day.
The temperature increase since the1680s is due to the up- leg in the natural solar ” activity” Millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD” (ibid). Figure 4 also shows the correlation between the CI driver and the Central England Seasonal Temperatures. (27). The 1650 – 1700 (Maunder), 1810 – 20 (de Vries/Dalton), and the 1890-1900 (Gleissberg) minima are obvious. The Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point (MSATP) at 1991 correlates with the Millennial Temperature Turning Point (MTTP) at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
The CET in Figure 4 shows that this up-leg in the CET has an annual absolute temperature Millennial cycle amplitude of at least 16.5 +/- degrees C. Using the Millennial cycle lengths of Figure 3 at least that same amount of future cooling from the 2004 high is probable by the winters of 2,680-2700 +/-. These temperature changes correlate very well with the changes in energy flow from the sun shown in Figure 4 without any measurable effect of C02 levels…………………………………………..
“Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/8 was + 0.18 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in ”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2. From time to time the jet stream will swing more sharply North – South. Local weather in the Northern Hemisphere in particular will be generally more variable with, in summers occasional more northerly extreme heat waves droughts and floods and in winter more southerly unusually cold snaps and late spring frosts………..”
No later commentators in the thread appear appear to have read or wish to question the above.
The reality is that general trends out to about 2700 and short term forecasts out to 2037 seem reasonably obvious from the patterns of past data.
Another deep freeze for Texas in March/April 2022 appears to be very likely
The low, whose center remains over Louisiana, is recovering and bringing downpours from Louisiana to Florida.
You can clearly see the effect of La Niña in US weather.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
How anomalies of the stratospheric polar vortex work.
“Linking the pattern of AO in the troposphere to the strength modulation of the stratospheric polar vortex provides perhaps the best measure of the coupling between the stratosphere and the troposphere. By examining the time series of AO signatures at the troposphere and stratosphere levels separately, it is shown that AO anomalies tend to appear first in the stratosphere and propagate downward. The mid-winter correlation between the 90-day low-pass filtered 10-hPa anomaly and the 1000-hPa anomaly exceeds 0.65 when the surface anomaly time series is delayed by about three weeks. The tropospheric signature of the AO anomaly is characterized by significant changes in storm tracks and midtropospheric flow strength, especially over the North Atlantic and Europe. Implications of large stratospheric anomalies as precursors to changes in tropospheric weather patterns are discussed.”
These anomalies translate into geopotential anomalies, resulting in circulation changes in the upper troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
“Geopotential anomalies from the Earth’s surface to the central stratosphere in the Northern Hemisphere are dominated by a mode of variability known as the Arctic Oscillation (AO). The AO is represented here by the leading mode (first empirical orthogonal function) of low-frequency variability of the winter geopotential in the 1000-10 hPa range. In the central stratosphere, the AO signature is a nearly zonally symmetric pattern representing a strong or weak polar vortex.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JD900445
The stratosphere functions very differently than the troposphere. Heat dissipates with ozone in the lower stratosphere, reaching its lowest temperature at the tropopause, with the tropopause (lowest temperature) on planets with fairly dense atmospheres occurring at a pressure level of about 0.1 bar.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_EQ_2021.png
“A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020
In the troposphere of Venus, at an altitude of about 50 km, the temperature and pressure are similar to those at the Earth’s surface.
https://i.ibb.co/bdx7Vhp/1918-3b.gif
https://i.ibb.co/MkdLNPG/1918-4a.gif
Ireneusz Palmowski, thank you again for your several links and posts.
Willard, please. So, your argument is that questioning motives is inappropriate? You have refused to criticize the specific criticisms identified by Pat and have painfully, agonizingly, and awfully returned to your trivial point. You have diminished the value of this post by focusing on something that has been established in academics and industry for years. Motives matter but do not discredit valid arguments and data. You have painfully, awfully, annoyingly, and destructively focused this post on an issue that does not need to be addressed. Please desist and get over yourself and go away.
Hi Dr. Curry,
Well said, especially as the success or failure of your enterprises (and whether they stay solvent) will result on your accuracy. There are many far brighter people than myself in the academic world but I wonder how many would take responsibility if their conclusions or recommendations on any topic went wrong. Working in engineering risk assessment means I can be expensively held accountable (or even wind up in jail) if I foul up. I raised this point on the issue of food security in the article I wrote for the climate coalition which is on their website. Academic does have another meaning of course here.
Dear Denizens of Judith’s place: Please, in the future, do not address Willard in any way shape or form, unless he happens on rare occasion to add a pertinent question or opinion to the discussion. It was remarkably clear here that all he wanted to do here was to hijack this thread so the real, valid criticisms of the work in question would not appear. Come on, we are better than this. Don’t answer him because your ego can’t stand his. Just do not respond to him. As a scientist in another field, I first became suspicious of climate science by reading responses made by climate scientists on other blogs, which were not consistent with responses actual trained scientists would have made. I know nothing of Willard and do not want to, but contrarian sites need to be better than “REAL CLIMATE” and we need to act like we respect the principles and practices of science. PLEASE!!
Don’t expect a response from me, Willard. I don’t need to prove anything to anybody.
Stephen – I concur
stephen’s comment – “As a scientist in another field, I first became suspicious of climate science by reading responses made by climate scientists on other blogs, which were not consistent with responses actual trained scientists would have made.”
similar observation with other “science only based websites such as “”skeptical Science”.
Dear Denizens of the Curry blog:
Please, I am begging you, do not respond to Willard ever again unless he happens to make a pertinent contribution to the discussion. His effort on this thread was painfully obvious. He wanted to hijack the thread to an irrelevant point and prevent real contributions about the critique of the paper in question. The first reason that I became suspicious of climate science was the response of major players in that field to comments on REAL CLIMATE. As I scientist in another field, these responses did not remotely resemble the responses that would have been made by real scientists. Particularly at the more objective climate science sites (like Judith’s), we need to demonstrate that we do not need to respond to folks like Willard who are obviously trying to prevent meaningful discussion.
Willard, no need to reply to me. I don’t need to prove anything to anyone.
Stephen Pruett Please, I am begging you, do not respond to Willard ever again unless he happens to make a pertinent contribution to the discussion.
My advice? Keep you composure and skip over what he writes.. I seldom read his contributions. In this thread, something intrigued me. His responses were nonsensical, so skip our whole interchange.
just following the science but seems to me – the author’s couch their conjectures in mathematical models whereas most of the biased, misleading and misinforming pandemic doomster soothsayers simply lie out their arses…
The Covid science and public policy nightmare might be just what we needed to bring to a head a problem long time festering: peer reviewed garbage coupled with political gatekeepers blocking good science.
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/wuhan-coverup-covid-typical-scientific-corruption/
“Giving phony research a scientific veneer, it turns out, is not all that hard, according to David Randall and Christopher Welser, co-authors of the ‘The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science: Causes, Consequences, and the Road to Reform.’ Typical methods include using unreliable statistical formulas, depending on sample sizes that are too small to be accurate, giving credence to small effects, and, most suspiciously of all, refusing to share one’s raw experimental data with colleagues.”
“One result, well-documented for more than 25 years, is that any academic study that contradicts left-wing thinking has an especially difficult time getting the peer endorsements needed for publication. This is true even when the rejected paper is just as comprehensively researched as the more liberal papers commonly accepted by prestigious journals.”
“Ioannidis himself now believes that up to half of the discoveries ever published in peer-reviewed social science and medical journals are wrong, an opinion he shares with National Association of Scholars (NAS) president Peter Wood. One terrible result, says Wood, is that many of the regulations, laws, and programs routinely passed by Congress on the basis of supposedly solid research have no real scientific justification.”
“Ioannidis himself now believes that up to half of the discoveries ever published in peer-reviewed social science and medical journals are wrong, an opinion he shares with National Association of Scholars (NAS) president Peter Wood. One terrible result, says Wood, is that many of the regulations, laws, and programs routinely passed by Congress on the basis of supposedly solid research have no real scientific justification.”
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/wuhan-coverup-covid-typical-scientific-corruption/
As a religious leader Mann perhaps had a great deal of influence over his sycophantic followers. But as a scientist you are not supposed to teach how to produce a flood of hockey stick-shaped graphs by simply feeding noise into a mathematical model that works like a maniacal global warming doomsday machine stuck in maximum overdrive.
North America will now be between two strong highs in the North Pacific and North Atlantic. They will be pushing a tropical wave over the Gulf of Mexico and North America.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
I wonder how much centennial and millennial variability there has been in precipitable water within the Indo Pacific Warm Pool. Would that map have looked the same during the MWP and LIA. I assume it would correlate with the SST variability. In the very little research I just did, this was interesting.
“ The global PWs have been changing in the past 60 years and, to some extent, strongly in recent 10 years. Based on the analysis of the long-term accumulation of radiosonde observations, it is found that PWs at Australian stations present statistically significant decreasing trends in the last 60 years, while PWs at most stations in the US have increasing trends, which is consistent with previous studies.”
Zhang, et al 2018
Yet another variable for the debate about forest fires in Australia.
Dry air can be very cold. This is the case during La Niña in California. Cold winds from the northeast increase the threat of forest fires, especially since there may be more stratospheric ozone in the winter air.
Tropical Storm PETER
As of 12:00 UTC Sep 19, 2021:
Location: 17.4°N 55.8°W
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Only one very faint spot is now visible on the solar disk.
https://i.ibb.co/KjQKt4d/latest.jpg
‘The bottom line is that Cohen et al. are going to have to be lot more convincing before I believe that a single month’s snowfall in Siberia drives the weather thousands of miles and several months away.’ PM
Me too. Zonal or meridional patterns of storm fronts are emergent behaviour of the polar vortices caused by the interaction of many processes in a coupled, nonlinear, complex dynamical system. But if we can solve global warming by calling Joshua a ‘poopyhead’ – I’m in.
Pingback: Weekly Climate And Energy News Roundup #471 – Watts Up With That?
Strange situation on the Sun. It looks like the solar fields are at the poles, and they should be moving towards the equator until the polarity changes.
No sunspots.
https://i.ibb.co/FzVN23C/AR-CH-20210917.png
This thread has been seriously disrupted by repeated, low-quality, off-topic comments by three known serial offenders.
Judith, might it be time for a period in the sin bin?
I suspect that among many others, I am no closer to an answer about the primary causes of the Texan electricity failure last February. As an Aussie, I have action all around me to increase penetration of renewables despite the questionable benefit of those already installed.
Judith, I hold you and your blog in high regard and I regret the likely loss of knowledgeable potential contributors who might have deserted these pages for the time being because of the damage from these trolls. (That outcome might have been the planned objective).
What, might I please ask, is now considered to be the most reliable and credible available report that analyses the Texan event? Geoff S
Geoff – Texas February electric failure ” The Time line and Evenosts of the February 2021 Texas Electric Grid Blackouts” July 2021 , University of Texas at Austin.
The report/study seems fairly technical with lots of discussion of load forecasts and other discussions of loads and specific events covering those 3-4 days prior to the 1am Feb 15th event. Also a lot of discussion on safety shut off when grid frequency drops. Depending of the degree of drop in frequency, the grid (or portions of the grid ) are designed for automatic shut down with in 9 minutes down to as quickly as 2 secs (59.4 hz with 2 sec shutoff when frequency drops below 57.5hz).
Very little discussion of the broad policy issues / energy generation mix with the exception of a comment that Wind lost power generation the earliest (Feb 10th).
I emphazie the point about frequency because, Wind has such drastic shifts in electric generation, that frequency in the grid becomes much more difficult to maintain at required frequency. (at least, that is my understandig)
Would it surprise anyone that the main reason the grid almost collapsed was due to the private sector not filing a required ‘notice of critical infrastructure’ report with ERCOT? Why should they since there was no penalty for ignoring it for years. ERCOT saw this weather event coming a week in advance but did next to nothing to reach out to the private sector (gas production and distribution) to avoid being disconnected from the grid. The 2-3 day-ahead wind/solar forecasts were about 80-90 percent accurate – I should know since I have my own solar and never lost the grid where I live (I’m near a small telco antenna farm).
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/14/dubious-climate-science-about-the-texas-cold-disaster/#comment-959819
Jack from Texas – ” The 2-3 day-ahead wind/solar forecasts were about 80-90 percent accurate – I should know since I have my own solar and never lost the grid where I live”
Not sure what your definition of 80-90 accurate is supposed to mean. Wind was expected to generate at 10-12% of capacity, but only produced at 5-7% capacity. On a separate note, that is common during the winter months, so the question is how more wind generation is going to solve the problem.
jacksmith comment – “Would it surprise anyone that the main reason the grid almost collapsed was due to the private sector not filing a required ‘notice of critical infrastructure’ report with ERCOT?”
Most knowlegeable people would seriously doubt that failure to file a report caused the blackout
Joe,
I know it seems so simplistic but ERCOT used that list to tell ONCOR which parts of the grid to NOT shut down. The (2012) requirement to make sure that all the players in the oil & gas sector kept the paper work up to date was the responsibility of the Texas Railroad Commission who controls the fossil fuel infrastructure. Layers of different regulators and agencies ended up with someone dropping the ball. The biggest cause of the cascading blackouts was ONCOR shutting down remote well and pumping stations that actually didn’t freeze during the storm. Most all of our technology worked pretty well considering the extreme conditions, even the gas networks that had electrical power.
Jack for Tx
Your explanation doesnt make sense
1 The decisions on maintaining gas supplies etc are made in real time, not based on reports filed monthly, semi annually or annually.
2 Oncor only covers 1/3 to 1/4 of of Texas. Its doubtful that Oncor had the ability to shut down pumping stations across the entire state when they service less than a 1/3 of the state.
Joe,
You are right about ONCOR, they only control a large percentage of the affected areas but not all. The rest of the utilities function the same way as ONCOR does under ERCOT I think. It seems to me the weak link was having the Railroad Comm. be responsible to keep the records up to date. I also fault ERCOT for not having a plan to use the wireless smart meter network to control the demand side instead of having days long blackouts. Sales of small backup power systems have been through the roof with 6-9 month lead times. Lots of people spending big $$ to avoid having to depend on the grid.
If you bring up the topic of stratospheric intrusions into the southern US during the fall/winter/spring season, I will concede the point.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_200_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
Especially for your information.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/gfs/2021092006/gfs_T2ma_us_1.png
And that’s the forecast for the next few days.
https://i.ibb.co/2jTmBwT/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f036.png
https://i.ibb.co/k2p0gx5/gfs-T2ma-us-7.png
Geoff
Yes, this thread has gone off the rails, crashed down a hillside and landed upside down in the river.
It takes a lot of effort to write an article and it is a shame for the author that the topic has not been allowed to develop through the medium of questioning, argument and discussion
Tonyb
February 2021 was not the first time Texas had problems delivering electricity during extremely cold weather. These problems go back to the 1980s. The problem was worse in February 2011. And the worst, so far, was February 2021. I assume the next unusually cold weather period will be even worse than February 2021.
An official August 2011 report diagnosed the February 2011 rolling blackouts that caused 3.2 million Texans to lose power. That report is at the link below.
It is a long report that I read after the February 2011 incident.
The report said the entire Texas energy infrastructure (beyond just electricity power plants) was not winterized like what you would see in colder Northern states. Even the windmills they bought did not have the optional blade deicers.
Having lots of windmills in 2021 did not directly cause the blackout. They were expected to provide little output in February 2021. In spite of roughly half having blade icing problems, the rest of the windmills produced about two thirds of the output ERCOT had expected from ALL their windmills. Except for a few hours before the blackouts began, when there was little wind power output. Unfortunately, very low output can happen for an hour or more every week with the ERCOT windmills. That’s why over 100% fossil fuel backup is required.
The primary problem in Texas was investing in a lot of windmills after 2011, and NOT investing in more fossil fuel plants, and not winterizing the energy infrastructure, as recommended in the August 2011 report. The unusually cold weather problem is not solved, and apparently will never be solved — too expensive. Better to waste money on more windmills?
https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/08-16-11-report.pdf
Richard G – there are three separate issues with the Ercot Feb 2021 black out.
1) What specific causes led up to the failure.
2) What were the ancillary causes that help facilitate the failure
3) what is long term solution
1) the immediate problem was the gas delivery issues, complete failure of renewables, and failure to winterize.
2) The diversion of improvements and upgrades to the unreliable renewables ,
3) While renewables were not the immediate direct cause, the near complete failure of renewables clearly demonstrates that they are not only NOT a solution, but in fact greatly inhibit a comprehensive solution
To Joe the non climate scientist (didn’t see a Reply button by your name):
There was NOT a complete failure of the renewables (windmills).
Failure is an engineering term.
The windmills did not fail, from an engineering point of view.
They did what they were designed to do — produce some amount of power when the wind is blowing more than 6 or 7 mph.. And the Texas windmills, without the optional blade deicers, were not designed to produce power when the blades are iced. And that is exactly what happened.
In fact the ERCOT windmills that were still operating (not iced) managed to average about 2/3 of the expected low output ERCOT had projected for February. For a few hours before the blackout, much less output. That’s the way the wind blows!
It is unfair to blame windmills for more than a small portion of the lack of power in Texas.
It is fair to blame Texans for investing so much money in windmills, KNOWING they are the least reliable source of electricity, and also creating an ERCOT grid with too little spare capacity — roughly half the national average (should have been above average with so many windmills).
The problem was not with the windmills failing to do what they were designed to do. The problem with windmills was Texans thinking that lots of unreliable windmills were a good investment for their electric grid.
Remember that Texas had cold weather problems in 2011 with far fewer windmills in use back then.
Richard coment – ” In fact the ERCOT windmills that were still operating (not iced) managed to average about 2/3 of the expected low output ERCOT had projected for February. For a few hours before the blackout, much less output. That’s the way the wind blows!”
Richard – I think we agree, though let me clarify my comment. While wind generated as you said 2/3 of projection, the projection was that wind would produce approx 10% of capacity, where as wind produced 6-8% of capacity, so they did produce 2/3 of their projected output. That being said, winds generation went for 25mw per hour the prior week down to 1-3 mw per hour from feb 12 through the the 19th with only a few hours generating 7-8mw.
I think we also agree that wind can not nor ever will be reliable enough.
Agreed, Geoff. Far too many of the posts here are the repetitive output of three posters.
While it’s true that discussions evolve and rightly provoke additional comments as new issues (perspectives) surface, simple arguments don’t seem to advance at least my understanding.
I dropped reading at two other blogs because they came to host relentless food fights and later became echo chambers for views I couldn’t share.
Judy, is it possible to revisit the rules regarding posting frequency or even better put the miscreants identified by Geoff on some time-out cycle?
This started a long and very tedious thread. Most of my comments survive because they have substance and I mix it up in the contemporary sense of the term.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/14/dubious-climate-science-about-the-texas-cold-disaster/#comment-960053
RIE,
You are one of the three. Geoff S
Of course. Geoff makes it personal at every opportunity.
e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/11/week-in-review-science-edition-129/#comment-959723
OOPs, sorry! read Judith for Judy above.
The EU is having a serious energy crunch. So much so that two fertilizer plants had to shut down. This push for “green energy” is having a negative impact on crops that “global warming” can only hope for.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/11/week-in-review-science-edition-129/#comment-960099
jim2 – concur
With the EU renewable rolling blackouts, CA, rolling blackouts, The Texas Feb 2021 fiasco, etc, its possible that sane people will recognize the engineering hurdles associated with renewables.
One of the biggest selling points with renewables is the very low marginal costs of electric generation, yet that hides the costs of all the back up power required to make renewables functional
Power systems require massive spare capacity to meet daily and seasonal peaks. Wind and solar sources have value equal to natural gas up to some relatively low penetration. They can usefully be balanced by hydro, biomass and geothermal sources. And reduce the need for high marginal cost gas peaking power. Unlike markets – they can be controlled by computers and supplemented with battery frequency regulation.
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/value-electricity.png
What’s needed is new designs for fuel efficient breed and burn fast neutron fission reactors that don’t need water cooling – and ancillary markets for process heat, hydrogen and fertilizer.
e.g. – https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ga-em2.jpg https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-cycle.jpg –
Mr. Ellison:
A very broad definition of spare capacity would cover daily peaks, or seasonal peaks. A more precise definition would be capacity exceeding known peak needs during a year.
That view of spare capacity would be available for temporarily use in “emergencies’ , such as another plants temporarily down for unplanned repairs during peak hours.
I can’t recall the exact numbers, but the average US utility had something like 10% to 12% spare capacity, yet Texas, with a lot of highly unpredictable wind power, had about half the average spare capacity.
I doubt if that mattered much in February 2021, since the entire Texas energy infrastructure, beyond power plants, could not handle the extremely cold weather.
Spare capacity covers the difference between seasonal and daily high and low demand. Which is substantial.
In two days, a spike in the stratosphere will move over the Midwest that could hurt agriculture. Such an early stratospheric intrusion this year is a serious warning for North America ahead of the coming winter.
https://i.ibb.co/DWmRZLN/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f048.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_150_NA_f048.png
A large high has developed over central Canada and temperatures will drop quickly.
The animation below perfectly shows the meridional circulation over North America. You can also see that storm Peter in the Atlantic has survived the shear and is approaching Hispaniola from the north.
Sorry.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=namer×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
America should know that we are entering a new climate era, the era of the quiet Sun. There is currently an absence of large sunspots, a strong decrease in high-energy UV radiation that produces ozone in the stratosphere, and very high levels of galactic radiation as during the solar cycle minimum.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
Britain risks blackouts for industry if harsh winter strikes Europe
businesstelegraph
September 20, 2021No comment
posted on Sep. 20, 2021 at 11:20 pm
A harsh winter could force the UK to restrict business’ energy supplies shutting down factories in a throw-back to the three-day week of the 1970s, according to sector experts.
A spike in natural gas prices forced the business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng into crisis talks with energy providers over the weekend. It has thrown the security of the country’s energy supplies into the spotlight, revealing vulnerabilities which government advisors claim to have repeatedly raised with government to no avail.
The business secretary emphasised the UK’s ability to produce nearly 50 per cent of the gas it needed last year in a statement to parliament on Monday and also suggested that key energy ally Norway could help meet shortfalls from elsewhere. He dismissed suggestions that there could be any supply shortages in the months ahead.
However, UK gas production has fallen this year and net imports of gas to the UK more than doubled in the three months to June compared to the same period in the previous year, the latest data released in August showed. Exports fell by more than three-quarters (76 per cent) and imports rose by 31 per cent during this period.
The UK’s gas storage would run low within weeks if there was a Europe-wide supply crunch triggered by a severe winter, according to academics and consultants who have advised the UK on energy security and market capacity. The supply crunch would most likely hit Britain in February and March: the worst months for storage levels in recent years, according to data gathered by the National Grid which overseas energy infrastructure.
…
“From an industrial perspective the risk that we cannot ignore is that the price rises so high that it chokes off activity and the economic recovery,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank. “We could get to a point of rationing energy, and politicians don’t want people freezing in their homes so the other option is for industry to shut down.”
Energy-intensive industries would be the first to be impacted, Mr Hansen said, pointing to nitrogen fertiliser companies that suspended production last week. These concerns round counter to statements from the government on Monday after meetings with energy companies.
https://www.businesstelegraph.co.uk/britain-risks-blackouts-for-industry-if-harsh-winter-strikes-europe/
solar wind drives climate, not co2
https://solarclimate.tumblr.com/post/662931197224271872/solar-wind-drives-climate-not-co2
‘For example, lake sediments have been analysed to demonstrate that a grand minimum of solar activity, the Homeric Minimum (∼2,750–2,550 years before present), affected climate conditions through western Europe through altered regional circulation consistent with the negative phase of the NAO48.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
I struggle with the language let alone the details of related ocean and atmospheric circulation. Jet streams form below the tropopause at the polar front between the polar cells and the midlatitude cells. Polar vortices form as a result of planetary rotation. The walls of the vortices extend from the troposphere to the lower stratosphere forming the polar fronts. The location of the fronts change with polar temperatures and related height of the tropopause over the poles and polar surface pressure. More negative southern and northern annular modes (SAM and NAM) – indices of polar and subpolar surface pressure – drive excursions of the polar fronts into lower latitudes. While lower solar activity may cause a more negative bias in the highly variable annular modes – these indices have drifted positive in the past few decades resulting in stronger polar westerlies at higher latitudes. Albeit with frequent shifts to negative states.
More zonal polar westerlies drive enhanced flow in gyres in all the world’s oceans. This causes enhanced upwelling on eastern oceanic margins. Changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation feed back into the polar annular modes.
My feeling is that internal dynamics – including the effects of greenhouse gas emissions – are more important than solar variability in this mode of climate variability. But it is far from simple.
The problem is that changes in the circulation during periods of very low solar activity will be associated with changes that occur in the stratosphere and are associated with a decrease in ozone production and a decrease in stratospheric temperature. Therefore, they will manifest mainly during the winter season when the stratospheric polar vortex merges with the troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2021.png
Although the effect on ocean temperature, will also be evident on longer timescales due to reduced mixing of water in the equatorial Pacific. This will reduce the heat content in the deeper layers of the Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202109.gif
“will be associated” .. “will be evident” .. “will reduce”. Do you guarantee it?
The problem is narrative that goes way beyond what can be empirically demonstrated.
The problem is not the narrative, but the actual observations that can be corrected on the fly. Since you can see that the temperature below the surface of the equatorial Pacific is falling, and the surface temperature is changing by leaps and bounds, that means the problem is the wind, which should be pushing the warm water westward. If I am showing certain observations, then please dispute them, or remain silent.
Whether the stratosphere during the winter season affects the circulation in the troposphere is easily tested by observing changes in the winter season geopotential above the 65th parallel. You can see that the winter season changes start from the upper stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2021.png
In this study we show that correspondence of the main structures of geomagnetic field, near surface air temperature and surface pressure in the mid-latitudes, reported previously in the 1st part of the paper, has its physical foundation. The similar pattern, found in latitude-longitude distribution of the lower stratospheric ozone and specific humidity, allows us to close the chain of causal links, and to offer a mechanism through which geomagnetic field could influence on the Earth’s climate. It starts with a geomagnetic modulation of galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and ozone production in the lower stratosphere through ion-molecular reactions initiated by GCR. The alteration of the near tropopause temperature (by O3 variations at these levels) changes the amount of water vapour in the driest part of the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS), influencing in such a way on the radiation balance of the planet. This forcing on the climatic parameters is non-uniformly distributed over the globe, due to the heterogeneous geomagnetic field controlling energetic particles entering the Earth’s atmosphere.
http://journals.uran.ua/geofizicheskiy/article/view/111146
The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).
To understand the ‘gyre hypothesis’ of physical linkages between polar annular modes and eastern margin oceanic upwelling – with Bjerknes feedback – is a study of years. Not just pretty pictures and stories.
e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833
Knowing the fundamental physical oceanographic processes is required for sensible interpretation of the TAO/Triton moored array data you link to.
There is a playlist on YouTube.
Thank you Robert I. Ellison
“These patterns were predominantly zonal from the 1970s to 1990s and switched since the 1990s to a meridional wind phase…”
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/DipallR.gif
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833
Thank you Robert I. Ellison
Improve your understanding of one of Australia’s key climate drivers, the Southern Annular Mode (SAM). To find out more visit: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/sam.
https://i.ibb.co/B6JbVxC/Screenshot-1.png
Robert I. Ellison
The southern stratospheric polar vortex is now strong, allowing La Niña to expand.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JAS_SH_2021.png
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
Although an admirable review in many ways – quoting an incorrect statement from the conclusion rather than the abstract might give you more credibility.
Try to figure out why it is incorrect.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/climate-ao.shtml
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/icelights/2012/02/arctic-oscillation-winter-storms-and-sea-ice
Oh for God’s sake. I am a professional. I have been to the BOM climate drivers page 100’s if not 1000’s of times. We all need hobbies. SAM (AKA AAO) has been largely positive for the past few weeks.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao_index.html
If it is negative I can sense it as far north as the Tropic of Capricorn. We had a hint this week. But it is not the season for it to be relevant to the emergence and maintenance of eastern and central Pacific upwelling. That tends to emerge in the Austral autumn and is maintained by internal Bjerknes feedback. Watch the damn videos and stop trying to be seem better informed than you are.
“If I am showing certain observations, then please dispute them, or remain silent.”
Ireneusz, keep showing carefully selected observations. And “correct them on the fly.” Dr. Goebbels is proud of you.
See how the ozone hole in the South has been growing since 2020.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/06/17/why_was_66_billion_spent_on_renewables_before_the_texas_blackouts_because_big_wind_and_big_solar_got_22_billion_in_subsidies_781862.html
The July 23 2021 Week in Review is no longer accepting replies.
I checked the August 3rd entry pile of numbers and noticed I ow an apology..to the CDC, testers ant contact tracers. I thought the CDC had to be playing with the total test number. I thought the testers and contact tracers could not be doing that many tests.
This month shows I was completely wrong. ALL ARE WORKING HARDER THAN EVER AND SAVING MANY LIVES.
9/22/2021
Total positive 123,212
Total tests 1,791,487
% of total tests 6
Total deaths 2100
Total positive 122,647
Total tests 2,208,099
% total tests 6
Total deaths 1,944
Total positive 117,761
Total tests 2,238,101
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,728
total positive 53,361
Total tests 749,831
% of total tests 7
Total deaths 752
Total positive 24,343
Total tests 227,910
% of total tests 11
Total deaths 259
Total positive 77,732
Total tests 2,274,991
% of total tesrs 3
Total deaths 712
Total positive 90,307
Total tests 3,925,948
% of total tests 2
Total deaths 1,682
Total positive 98,927
Total tests 2,138,804
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 2012
Total positive 109,424
Total tests 2,125,504
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,694
Total positive 109,745
Total tests 1,883,676
% of total tests 6
Total deaths 1,986
Total positive 46,482
Total tests 718,343
% of total tests 6
Total deaths 690
Total positive 26,275
Total tests 385,957
% of total tests 7
Total deaths
Total positive 53,487
Total tests 3,799,222
% ot total tests 1
Total deaths 481
Total positive 89,705
Total tests 2,107,081
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 1,756
Total positive 92,669
Total tests 1,748,495
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,583
Total positive 94,928
Total tests 2,330,158
% of total tests 4
total dearhs 1,684
Total positive 42,186
Total tests 785,176
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 480
Total positive 23,783
Total tests 509,543
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 517
Total positive 34,966
Total tests 2,368,688
% of total tests 1
Total deaths 245
Total positive 66,770
Total tests 2,169,019
% of total tests 3
Total deaths 1,266
Total positive 91,532
Total tests 2,056,454
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 1,669
Total positive 78,847
Total tests 1,660,002
% of total tests 5
Total tests 1,424
Total positive 86,448
Total tests 2,079,483
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 1,669
Total positive 33,910
Total tests 631,166
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 5
Total deaths 464
Total positive 17,947
Total tests 921,544
% of total tests 2
Total deaths 161
Total positive 37,086
Total tests 1,660,345
% of total tests 2
Total deaths 626
Total positives 62,121
Total tests 3,3995,479
% of total tests 2
Total deaths 1,371
Total positive 76,242
Total tests 1,671,428
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,969
Total positive 77,195
Total tests 1,667,773
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,388
Total positive 72,416
Total tests 1,797,879
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 1,506
Total positive 28,824
Total tests 634,706
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 484
Total positive 16,750
Total tests 357,476
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 138
Total positive 37,015
Total tests 1,845,636
% of total tests 2
Total deaths 310
Total positive 65,098
Total tests 10,939,108
% of total tests 0.6
Total deaths 1,425
They added 8,478,569 tests last knight.
They have not done that since12/25/2020
Total positive 74,025
Total tests 1,503,571
% of total tests 5
Total deaths 1,469
Total positive 71,082
Total tests 1,790,461
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 1,153
Total positive 74,400
Total tests 1,755,380
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 1,484
Total positive 26,355
Total tests 365,071
% of total tests 7
Total deaths 350
Total positive 19,449
Total tests 548,632
% of total tests 4
Total deaths 154
While the US is concentrating on vaccination, a treatment has been successful in India: “With a population of 240 million people, which is about 75 percent of the total United States population, Uttar Pradesh has had only about 24 cases of the Chinese Virus and no deaths over the past several months. This is astounding compared to what is happening throughout the West.”
https://agrdailynews.com/2021/09/18/same-ivermectin-that-us-government-doesnt-want-americans-to-receive-is-saving-lives-across-india-dr-eddy-bettermann-md/
MONTH TOTAL DEATHS
SEPTEMBER, 2020 27,798
OCTOBER, 2020 24,271
NOVEMBER, 2020 38,500
DECEMBER, 2020 77,967
JANUARY, 2021 99,352
FEBRUARY, 2021 74,211
MARCH, 2021 39,672
APRIL, 2021 24,923
MAY, 2021 20,271
JUNE, 2021 10,436
JULY, 2021 9,090
AUGUST, 2021 27,410
SEPTEMBER, 2021 60,182
OCTOBER, 2021 52, 027
Is this the place for any of this?
On the 30th you will see. What is the place for the truth!!!!!
Monthly deaths list above begins in September of 2020. That is when the AMERICAN PEOPLE understood how to control COVID-19 with the 6-day rule. They gave it to the Testers and Contact tracers. They began to do it that month.
The list shows that it took until February for the rule to overcome the 4 day delay.
The border was opened in January. The border crossers overtook the TESTERS AND CONTACT TRACERS in August.
September doubled more than August death number.
The total deaths in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA due to COVID-19 from January, 2021 thru September, 2021 is 266,185. This can only be explained by the opening of the southern border by PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN. AFTER THE TEST,WHEN THE CROSSERS ARE FIRST STOPPED, the positive are isolatedand the rest are sent thruout the country. It is up to the testers and contact tracers to find the infected, that would have shown positive on the 6th day, and those they infected.
266,185 American military personnel died in WW II.
291,557 in WW II
It looks like the TESTERS and CONTACT TRACERS are holding fairly even to the border crossers. I believe the 3 border states are going to take control of the problem. California is on their own.
Hopefully this month we will hold even with last month and down from there.
Senator Richard Durbin just finished explaining how the republican states have the highest growth of new COVID-19 cases. If I am correct that is also where they are dumping the majority of illegals that have tested negative for the virus, but were not asked to isolate themselves and get retested per the 6-day rule. They are leaving that up to the states.
I used the total deaths by month to show how the AMERICAN PEOPLE got control of the virus. It also shows how the open border police caused the loss of control.
Senator Durbin is explaining how the open border police is affecting the death count in each state.
IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE EVERY MOVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MAKES IS TO REMOVE THE WORKERS FROM THE LABOR FORCE.
THE LATEST IS THE MANDITORY VACCINE.
THE OPEN BORDER IS LOADING UP THE COUNTRY WITH UNVACCINED. ELIMINATING THE 6-DAY RULE IS OVERLOADING THE SYSTEM WITH COVID-19 INFECTED.
HOW MANY MEDICAL PERSONEL, BORDER SECURITY PERSONEL AND VIRUS FIGHTING ARE FORCED OUT OF THE WORKFORCE?????
The administration was just asked how will they solve the supply chain problem. Their answer was probably not until after the PANDEMIC was under control.
ENOUGH SAID!!!!!
The Biden administration is blaming the unvaccinated individuals living in the USA for the rise in new COVID-19 cases. I will explain the above list of deaths above and how it shows that it is the open borders, and only the open borders as shown by the monthly deaths!!!!!
In September of 2020 the AMERICAN PEOPLE found the 6-day rule. The testers and contact tracers began using the rule.
In January of 2021 the monthly deaths reached its peak. The number of unvaccinated in the USA was higher than today.
In July of 2021 the monthly deaths reached its low point. The number if unvaccinated in the USA was higher than it is today.
The number of monthly deaths for October 2021is going to be close to, or above that of September 20212.
Since September of 2020 the TESTERS and CONTACT TRACERS have greatly increased the average number of tests per day.
As of today, the total number of deaths from COVID-19 since January 31, 2021, is 289,471.
P.S. The total number of deaths of Americans military personnel in WW II was 291,557.
In my opinion there is one way they can give the AMERICAN PEOPLE confidence that we actually have COVID-19 partially under control. That is publish the percentage of individuals in the ICU, and deaths that have, or died from COVID-19 that are actually residents of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
When they do that, if I am correct, they will have to take control of the border and complete the wall.
If they do that, the testers and contact tracers will rapidly control COVID-19!!!!
I have only one question about the latest outbreak of COVID-19 in young children. It will never be answered by the CDC!!!!
What percentage of children in this recent COVID-19 outbreak in young children are recent border crossers?
“The steep rise in European gas prices has been driven by a combination of a strong recovery in demand and tighter-than-expected supply, as well as several weather-related factors. These include a particularly cold and long heating season in Europe last winter, and lower-than-usual availability of wind energy in recent weeks.”
“Recent increases in global natural gas prices are the result of multiple factors, and it is inaccurate and misleading to lay the responsibility at the door of the clean energy transition,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.
Going forward, the European gas market could well face further stress tests from unplanned outages and sharp cold spells, especially if they occur late in the winter. Gas storage levels in Europe are well below their five-year average but not markedly below their previous five-year lows, which were reached in 2017.”
“Based on the available information, Russia is fulfilling its long-term contracts with European counterparts – but its exports to Europe are down from their 2019 level. The IEA believes that Russia could do more to increase gas availability to Europe and ensure storage is filled to adequate levels in preparation for the coming winter heating season. This is also an opportunity for Russia to underscore its credentials as a reliable supplier to the European market.”
“European electricity prices have climbed to their highest levels in over a decade in recent weeks, rising above 100 euros per megawatt-hour in many markets. In Germany and Spain, for example, prices in September have been around three or four times the averages seen in 2019 and 2020. This increase has been driven by the surge in gas, coal and carbon prices in Europe. The strong rise in gas prices led electricity providers in a number of European markets to switch from gas to coal for power generation – a trend that would have been more pronounced if it had not been for the increase in the price of carbon emission allowances on the European market.”
https://www.iea.org/news/statement-on-recent-developments-in-natural-gas-and-electricity-markets
Due to a clear downward trend in the strength of the solar magnetic field, which may continue for decades, a change in past weather patterns is to be expected. This is due to the strong ionization of the lower stratosphere due to the increase in galactic radiation and the decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere. North America will be subject to greater circulation changes in winter as the geomagnetic field over North (and South) America weakens.
Sorry.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
The relationship between climate parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been described by many authors. However, the lack of a viable mechanism to explain this relationship has hindered progress in this field of research. Based on instrumental observations, we reveal a spatial-temporal correlation between key geomagnetic field structures, Earth’s surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and specific humidity near the tropopause. We propose the following chain of causal relationships as one plausible explanation for these correlations: (1) modulation of the intensity and depth of penetration of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field; (2) perturbation of ozone density near the tropopause under the influence of GCRs; (3) temperature change near the tropopause due to the high absorption capacity of ozone; (4) the adjustment of the static stability of the extratropical upper troposphere, and consequently the specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temperature; and (5) the change of the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor greenhouse effect.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables
The level of galactic radiation measured at high latitudes is the best indicator of the strength of the solar wind magnetic field. One can compare this indicator during the minimum and maximum periods of the solar cycle. It is important to know that neutron levels measured near the Earth’s surface are many times lower than the ionizing radiation of the GCR in the lower stratosphere.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
https://sol.spacenvironment.net/nairas/Dose_Rates.html
While there may be a link between solar variability and polar surface pressure – there are other factors. Low solar activity is connected with polar storm fronts moving into lower latitudes. Yet the polar annular mode indices have been moving positive in recent decades. It’s a puzzle that is not solved – and isn’t that what science is about?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/lam-2013-geopotential-at-polaes.png
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/507981/1/grl52088.pdf
This is not surprising when the temperature in the upper stratosphere is very low.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2021.png
“Data from the Sentinel-5P satellite were used to show that last year’s ozone hole over Antarctica was one of the largest and deepest in recent years. The hole grew rapidly from mid-August and peaked at about 25 million km2 on October 2. The large ozone hole was caused by a strong, stable and cold polar vortex that kept the temperature of the ozone layer over Antarctica at a constant low level. This was in stark contrast to the extremely small ozone hole that formed in 2019.
This year, the evolution of the ozone hole appears to be similar to last year’s size, now about 23 million km2 – reaching a range larger than Antarctica. According to CAMS, the 2021 ozone hole has expanded significantly over the past two weeks and is now larger than 75% of ozone holes at this stage of the season since 1979.”
https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/What_s_going_on_with_the_ozone
However, changes in ozone due to weak solar wind are taking place in the lower stratosphere and tropopause, and thus at the level of the jet stream.
What is not surprising?
The variability in the strength of the southern polar vortex is evident in the variability in the size of the southern ozone hole. Radical changes occur from year to year. Compare 2019 and 2020.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
In this situation, averaging over long periods of time is quite poor. If you want to relate this to the strength of the solar magnetic field, you have to start at 1990.
By David Archibald
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Solar-Dipole-radial-and-classic-1632439297.3052.jpg
What do you mean by strength of the polar vortex?
The stratospheric winter polar vortex is strong when wind speeds in the stratosphere exceed the multi-year average.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JAS_SH_2021.png
At the same time when the polar vortex is strong there is a negative geopotential height anomaly in the stratosphere.
As you can see in the graphic below, this does not always translate to gepotential in the lower stratosphere and troposphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_SH_2021.png
The polar vortex is often said to be strong when the pattern is more zonal. Fewer meandering excursions. The geopotential height relates to air temperature and thus density. Handwaving at GPH and stratospheric wind anomalies means zilch to me. Perhaps George understands what you think you are getting at.
So look at 2019, when the ozone hole was very small. Do you see this huge positive geopotential height anomaly?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_SH_2019.png
Now look at the zonal wind speed anomalies.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_SH_2019.png
Now look at the temperature anomalies for 2019.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2019.png
Was it the temperature anomaly that caused the polar vortex to weaken so much, or was the SSW the result of the polar vortex weakening?
I might understand. Ireneusz found a term “geopotential height” somewhere and he is using happily, as it sounds very scientific. It is simply a vertical coordinate, and it has fewer anomalies than latitude or longitude.
“A geopotential height plot for a single atmospheric pressure level shows the troughs and ridges (highs and lows) that are typically seen in upper air charts.
For example:
Geopotential height analysis on the North American Mesoscale Model (NAM) at 500 hPa.”
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/NAM_500_MB.PNG
The polar jet stream is located at the top of the troposphere between the polar atmospheric circulation cell and the Ferrel cell.
http://www.eumetrain.org/data/5/569/media/images/jet_stream/fig2.jpg
The polar vortices extend from the surface to the stratosphere and are caused by planetary rotation and modulated by polar surface pressure. High polar surface pressure causes the polar front to move into lower latitudes bringing with it cold and storms. More polar storm excursions into lower latitudes – caused by higher polar surface pressure whatever the mechanism – is associated with low solar activity. There are a number of proposed mechanisms and none are scientifically definitive.
e.g. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta
Although highly variable the polar annular mode indices have been showing lower polar pressure (more positive indices) in recent decades suggesting that something other than solar variability is responsible.
Large effects of solar variability related to the 11-year sunspot cycle (SSC) are seen in the stratosphere, but only if the data are grouped according to the phase of the QBO (Quasi-Biennial Oscillation). New results based on an extended, 66-year long data set fully confirm earlier findings and suggest a significant effect of the SSC on the occurrence of the Major Midwinter Warmings (MMWs) over the Arctic as well as on the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex and on the mean meridional circulation. By means of teleconnections the dynamical interaction between the Arctic and the Tropics in the stratosphere and in the troposphere is shown for the whole data set and compared with the anomalies of single events. The results suggest strongly that dur- ing the northern winter the teleconnections between the Arctic and the Tropics were determined by the MMWs and the undisturbed, cold winters, respectively. These events in the stratosphere depend, however, on the 11-year SSC and on the QBO. The stratosphere is least disturbed during the northern summer when the interannual vari- ability is small. And if the different phases of the QBO are introduced, a large solar signal is found in the eastphase of the QBO (more than two standard deviations). It is shown that the QBO not only modulates the solar signal on the decadal scale, but that the QBO is itself modulated by the solar variability.
https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/qbo_wind.jpg
During solar minima the so-called “Holton-Tan Relationship”is valid for bothphases of the QBO: In the QBO-eastphase the Arctic is relatively warm, with frequentMMWs, while during the westphase cold polar vortices dominate. However, during solar maxima the situation is reversed, especially during the westphase of the QBO. New results based on an extended, 66-year long data set fully confirm our earlier 276 K. Labitzke and M. KunzeFig. findings and suggest a significant effect of the SSC on the occurrence of the MajorMidwinter Warmings (MMWs) as well as on the strenght of the stratospheric polarvortex and on the mean meridional circulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237105625_Variability_in_the_stratosphere_The_sun_and_the_QBO
So complex dynamical teleconnections between some aspect of solar variability and patterns of atmospheric circulation. Who’d of thunk it? And do us the courtesy of using quotation marks.
Over on the other side of the pond, it is funny in a dark sort of way to see how big a sacrifice in terms of financial loss and number of economic trash-people freezing or starving to death, Europe is willing to pay, in order to protect their sacred right to regard gas from Russia’s Nordstream 2 as racially impure. Quite a lot I would guess, if past form is anything to go by. How are stockpiles of coffins looking? If it’s so important for America that Europe continue treating Russians as untermenschen, and their gas as racially impure, maybe they can help out by shipping over a few million coffins of nice American wood?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58650634
The current apparent increase in geomagnetic activity may result in more rapid movement of tropical storms in the Atlantic toward North America.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
There is one active spot and a large coronal hole on the Sun. A strong geomagnetic storm is predicted in the coming days.
The 3.4 Niño Index will now fall below -0.5 C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
You don’t have to believe me. Observe reality.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202109.gif
Kp-index forecast
Min. Max.
Saturday Kp1 Kp3
Sunday Kp1 Kp5
Monday Kp3 Kp6
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en.html
There is a reason the TAO/Triton moored array is where it is. But no one interprets the data like you do.
Robert,
Smooth surface planets have very strong SW specular reflection which cannot be “seen” by satellites.
The coupled term Φ(1 – a) is what makes the energy in estimation correct:
Φ(1 – a)Sπr² (W)
We have six (6) planets and moons with Φ = 0,47 and seven (7) with Φ = 1.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The difference is the angle of reflection.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/11/week-in-review-science-edition-129/#comment-960302
I like physical processes or at the very least statistical correlation. So the question is – why should we believe you?
It’s not science, but it’s important:
https://archive.ph/hKeGJ#selection-877.0-877.169
Willard claims significance for – “including a front-page story about an industry report claiming the policy would cost 23,000 resource sector jobs. And it worked: Australian Parliament eventually voted against Rudd’s carbon-reduction effort”
What is your motivation to publicize incorrect post-mortem versions of the real story?
I was there, living through this Retired from managing government relations for a major Aust company, still connected to real players behind National policy development.
People voted against this because first, Rudd was showing himself as an untrusty leftie with odd ideas, plus people did not want to pay more $$$ for electricity and plus a polled majority repeatedly put global warming on the bottom of their worry list. Geoff S
> Willard claims
If you want a claim to put words in my mouth, Geoff, try this one:
Anyone who read your comments (I now don’t because of they reach diminishing returns quickly) can guess where you lie on the political spectrum and should not be surprised by how you are putting words in my mouth.
Willard,
Did you or did you not post that quote because you could claim that it had significance?
Question: What words did I put in your mouth? Answer: None. Geoff S
Geoff,
Here’s what I think is significant:
I don’t mind much your hypocrisy.
I mind Rupert’s.
In my 24 years of following climate science, i have only discovered a few people who claimed the climate was not changing, and they were only referring to a short period of time. No one I heard on Fox News in the past 24 years ever claimed our planet’s climate never changes.
Willard, you are a typical leftist, misrepresenting people who have actually studied climate science, by distorting what they have said, so you can criticize them. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but won’t be, because for a leftist, lying in support of a leftist goal is tolerated.
Richard,
You’re wasting your spit. I already have “but the climate is always changing” in my Bingo. That’s just silly ridicule.
None of what you said addresses Rupert’s hypocrisy.
Richard Greene | September 25, 2021 at 12:23 pm | Reply
In my 24 years of following climate science, i have only discovered a few people who claimed the climate was not changing,”
Richard – what do you mean ? – there is a whole industry of people claiming there is a straight shaft on the HS until circa 1850, including willard, and company. they got all those cherrypicked proxies proving it.
> including willard
Let me call your bluff, Joe.
Quote me.
Nature makes ice and melts ice to maintain a constant surface temperature of the earth. When the ice shelf is completely gone, the oceans will recede. Then the next ice age will begin.
That will be in about 120,000 years.
‘Hypocrisy’ is endemic these days.
“The bottom line: The number of ballots impacted by discrepancies far exceeds Biden’s margin of victory in the state. Both sides of this debate will claim the report validates their position, but in truth, without proper vetting of the impacted ballots, we’ll never know if the election results were legitimate.”
A little anonymous press quote about the Arizona election audit which, like so much of our current difficulties with information vis-à-vis misinformation, hangs an official report in the air and perhaps demonstrates how little ‘we’ care about doing things properly these days be it an official election, climate change understanding and sensible policy, or even dealing with a pesky viral pandemic in real time.
If we cannot be bothered to get democracy and its results fit for purpose then what is the point of it? If we cannot be bothered to get climate change causes and mitigation policy fit for purpose then what is the point of it? If we cannot be bothered to get viral epidemic public health policy and action fit for purpose then what is the point of it?
Perhaps we need to get some morality back into human life and fast and begin to share the common ground there is among all those who like to see things done properly because otherwise they are not worth doing.
Hypocrisy – linked to a many flavoured self serving dogma- was from long past one of the tools for survival (of the smartest) of the ‘naked ape’.
However re ‘If we cannot be bothered to get democracy and its results fit for purpose then what is the point of it?’, this kind of faulty democracy is still a better option than several of the social control/regulation systems that have existed in the past, and may still do to this day.
A little delving into history is enough for a taste of what it has been and what it could be, in both religious and secular forms. Both I find distinctly distasteful.
Just Asking Questions about an unevidenced conspiracy theory that is unrelated to AGW might not be the best way to epilogue on hypocrisy, Lass. There might be some connection between how Newscorp treats that conspiracy theory and AGW, however. For instance:
https://archive.ph/hKeGJ#selection-1059.175-1059.420
It might be interesting to know if Newscorp really believes in the conspiracy theories they sell, or if they exploit troglodytes like you by throwing red meat and Just Asking Questions.
They the ones that pushed the Trump-Russia collusion hoax on the gullible of the world for years?
Global warming could have been solved by now if it were not for neo-socialist luddites like poor wee willie. Many more cows on 5 billion hectares of existing grazing land. Apparently if grasses are allowed to recover between grazing deep roots develop feeding carbohydrates to fungi that break down parent rock releasing plant nutrients. Or bacteria that fix atmospheric nitrogen. It’s symbiotic relationships. This contrasts with the cows fart meme. Ask yourself what happens to savannah without grazing? It dies, it dries, it burns, it turns to desert.
Helium cooled fast neutron convert and burn nuclear fission engines. There is enough energy in US nuclear waste stockpiles for hundreds of years of power, fuels and fertilizer. It’s not new technology. It’s madness not to have these rolling off mega-factory floors in this decade.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ga-em2.jpg
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-cycle.jpg
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/em2-waste-reduction.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/em2-summary-e1514320391410.png
‘This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.’ Shared Socio-economic pathway No. 5
We can compare this to poor wee willies AI economic overlord directing global production and consumption with hungry people and a world turning to desert.
https://archive.ph/hKeGJ#selection-1065.0-1069.108
Global warming causing colder winters?
This is what emergent thermal homeostasis looks like.
Get used to it.
https://direct.mit.edu/isal/proceedings/alif2016/608/99454
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/07/08/emergent-thermal-homeostasis-a-new-paradigm-for-ex-pluribus-unum-climate-stability/
Just for Jim Hunt – the bolding is mine. And even if we are contributing to driving the system to its next tipping point – the solution is not veganism and poor wee willies AI economic overlord dictating global production and consumption. It is many more cows on 5 billion hectares of grazing land and factory built, helium cooled, fast neutron, convert and burn nuclear fission engines.
‘This synthesis study assesses recent changes of Arctic Ocean physical parameters using a unique collection of observations from the 2000s and places them in the context of long-term climate trends and variability. Our analysis demonstrates that the 2000s were an exceptional decade with extraordinary upper Arctic Ocean freshening and intermediate Atlantic water warming. We note that the Arctic Ocean is characterized by large amplitude multi-decadal variability in addition to a long-term trend, making the link of observed changes to climate drivers problematic. However, the exceptional magnitude of recent high-latitude changes (not only oceanic, but also ice and atmospheric) strongly suggests that these recent changes signify a potentially irreversible shift of the Arctic Ocean to a new climate state. These changes have important implications for the Arctic Ocean’s marine ecosystem, especially those components that are dependent on sea ice or that have temperature-dependent sensitivities or thresholds. Addressing these and other questions requires a carefully orchestrated combination of sustained multidisciplinary observations and advanced modeling.’ https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/11-0902.1
These studies have shown that perturbations in the circulation of the troposphere associated with fluctuations in SA/GCR
occur throughout the globe. The spatial structurehttps://www.deepl.com/pl/translator#ure of the observed pressure changes is determined by the
the influence of SA/GCR on the main elements of the large-scale atmospheric circulation (polar vortex, zone of fronts
zone of planetary fronts, and extratropical bar systems). Temporal structure of the SA/GCR influence on the atmospheric circulation
of atmospheric circulation at high and mid latitudes is characterized by ~60-year periodicity, with changes in the sign of the correlation occurring
Changes in the sign of the correlation occur between 1890 and 1900, in the early 1920s, in the 1950s, and in the early 1980s. This ~60-year
~60-year periodicity is likely due to changes in the epochs of large-scale atmospheric circulation. The sign
SA/GCR effects appear to be related to the evolution of the C form of the meridional circulation. A
The mechanism of SA/GCR effects on the circulation of the troposphere may be related to changes in the development of the polar vortex in the stratosphere
polar vortex in the stratosphere at high latitudes. Intensification of the polar vortex may contribute to
increase in temperature contrasts in frontal zones and intensification of extratropical cyclogenesis.
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2010/STP2010/Veretenenko_Ogurtsov_2010.pdf
“The response of atmospheric pressure to GCR changes over the Northern polar region is always opposite to that over the Southern polar region. The GCR effects over the cyclogenetic region at middle latitudes in the Northern hemisphere and over the Northern polar region are also of opposite sign. The pressure changes associated with GCR changes over the intertropical convergence zone at low latitudes seem to be of the same sign as those over the Northern polar region.”
Why will the stratospheric polar vortex in the north never be as strong as in the south? Just look at the distribution of the geomagnetic field in high latitudes. The geomagnetic field in the south is very homogeneous, while the geomagnetic field in the north is broken up into two centers that change strength rapidly (the center over Canada is weakening).
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_f.jpg
https://geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_s_f.jpg
The geomagnetic field in the north allows for a periodic influx in ozone during the winter, so a large ozone hole does not form in the north as it does in the south. Remember that ozone is diamagnetic and as such is repelled by a stronger magnetic field.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
In a magnetic field 100,000 times stronger you would have a point.
The stratospheric temperature over the pole is now falling below the 1991-2020 average, foreshadowing a strong stratospheric polar vortex and a rapid increase in Arctic ice extent.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/pole30_nh.gif
https://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r00_Northern_Hemisphere_ts_4km.png
The 3.4 Niño Index fell below -0.5 C.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
The current increase in solar wind speed is causing a drop in the Niño 3.4 index, as well as an acceleration of the zonal circulation, which could push Hurricane Sam further west.
https://i.ibb.co/wrLJRSX/chart-1.png
Hurricane Sam is very strong. No shear.
blob:https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/9c2a6f5a-2e6b-44c0-99ee-81a84fa163b8
What does the zonal circulation look like during the 25th solar cycle? Depending on the solar wind spikes, it will slow down (as it is now) when the solar wind speed decreases and accelerate when there is a solar wind speed spike (as happened on September 28). Overall, the solar wind in this cycle is weak and does not cause strong geomagnetic storms.
https://i.ibb.co/NTWtPf8/latest2day.gif
The next spike in geomagnetic activity is predicted for October 1.
It is likely that the magnetic field of the solar wind causes a type of ripple in the Earth’s atmosphere.
This wave, like the aurora borealis, is very close to a circle.
https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/aurora-forecast-northern-hemisphere.jpg
Hurricane Sam is now being sheared by an upper level low that is operating over the northeastern US.
Ireneusz. I think we are on the same track. You appear to be very well informed. Perhaps you could comment on the general theme of my paper linked on my earlier comment on this thread’
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/14/dubious-climate-science-about-the-texas-cold-disaster/#comment-959797
Thanks Norman
“The emergent temperature time series trends of the combined orbital, solar and GCR drivers also reflect turning points, changes of state and important threshold effects created by the interactions of the underlying physical processes. These exogenous forcings are also simultaneously modulated by changes in the earth’s magnetic field and length of day.”
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/
“Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91.”
The Great Barrier Reef may still be doing very well, thanks to increased upwelling in the Niño 4 area.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
This area is also seeing the impact of increased easterly winds during the increase in geomagnetic activity. I predict further declines due to another jump in solar wind speed. Temperatures will drop even more in November as sea ice begins to melt in the south of Pacific.
IPCC AR6 WG1 discussion thread still open for opinions and thoughts.
This post
Dubious climate science about the Texas cold disaster
by Patrick Michaels
deserves better than the outlier threads developed.
Any article pushing the lines that warming causes cooling is patently false to start with but it is good that Pat for one is taking the dubious science on.
I predict that Bermuda will be in the range of a powerful hurricane.
https://i.ibb.co/S3jR5qb/01359f42-cb09-4fd7-babc-d094ead4d6b2.jpg
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
Tmean = [Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
We have moved further from the incomplete effective temperature equation
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
(which is in common use right now, but actually it is an incomplete planet Te equation and that is why it gives us very confusing results)
a – is the planet’s surface average albedo
S – is the solar flux, W/m²
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
We have discovered the Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
The Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation is also based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
The Equation is being completed by adding to the incomplete Te equation the new parameters Φ, N, cp and the constant β.
Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
N – rotations /day, is the planet’s axial spin
cp – cal /gr*oC, is the planet’s surface specific heat
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant.
………………………………….
The Planet Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation is also based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-
Boltzmann Law.
But the New Equation doesn’t consider planet behaving as a blackbody, and the New Equation doesn’t state planet having a uniform surface temperature.
It is very important – the New Equation is based on Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon .
Please also visit my new blog:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/450665358
This is of course dubious science to the Nth degree repeated in every post at least once. I am always appalled that CE is the wild west of science. A warmer planet emits more IR – but that’s impossible by the 2nd law of thermodynamics on a thermodynamically nonequilibrium planet. Energy in equals energy out.
Sorry. Homer has it right. It’s the 1st law. 🙄
Robert, have you visited my new blog?
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589403016855._szw1280h1280_.jpg
When studying the Graph it becomes obvious that the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” is an observed planetary physics law.
Please also visit my new blog:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/450665358
You can “play” with the propagation of such weak sunspots (no strong flares).
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/sunspot-regions.html
There has been a change in the way spots are counted and this is apparent, but measurements of galactic radiation near the surface clearly show a weakening of the solar dipole.
https://i.ibb.co/GQyPWCW/onlinequery.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/
Robert
“A warmer planet emits more IR – but that’s impossible by the 2nd law of thermodynamics on a thermodynamically nonequilibrium planet. Energy in equals energy out.”
It is widely known fact, Earth has higher than Moon albedo, so Earth emits less IR EM energy, but Earth is on average a warmer than Moon planet…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Some 7% of Earth’s IR emission is from the surface.
“Some 7% of Earth’s IR emission is from the surface.”
An interesting partition of IR.
I presume the rest is supposed to be from the clouds and atmosphere.
But how much energy is really being emitted and where from?
Dubious climate science really applies to that Trenbath diagram?
341.3 W/M2
78 W absorbed by clouds and atmosphere [the suns IR output?]
102 W reflected [SW not IR]
161 W absorbed by earth surface
Thermals and evaporation take 97 W away without radiation from the surface [radiated later]
leaving 64 W to be emitted by the earth surface?
7% of 64 W means total IR emission of earth is 930 W of IR is being emitted from the earth other than the surface?
161 to 930 W/M2 seems a big jump for energy being produced from nowhere.
It could represent back radiation and re radiation rather than IR going to space but I cannot do the maths for this.
Of the 239 IR going out
the surface sends 40 directly to space through a window.
40 out of 239 is a sixth so 16.6% not 7% comes from the earth emissions direct to space.
There are 333W reflected back to the surface so the total surface output is 396 W approximately
Which matches the earth’s radiating temperature at the surface presumably.
But 396 W is about 42% of 930 W which is all the IR bouncing around being emitted [but not all going to space], not 7%.
In fact the earth surface is emitting 120% of the energy going to space in this scenario, or if we want to compare its output to its real input
396 to 64 it is putting out 600+% of energy to what it receives from the sun.
How do we determine the IR emission from the surface of the earth to get a 7% figure?
‘Schwarzschild’s equation is used to calculate radiative transfer – energy transfer – through a medium in local thermodynamic equilibrium that both absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation.’
Sounds like a job for the atmosphere. Some 7% of radiation emitted from the planet – some 240 W/m2 in total – comes directly from the surface without being absorbed and reemitted.
Christos Vournas
” It is a widely known fact, Earth has a higher than Moon albedo, so Earth emits less IR EM energy, but Earth is on average a warmer than Moon planet.”
Christos, just saying something does not make it a fact.
Your statement is wrong only because you speak of emission in general rather than emission per Sq meter of surface.
If the earth was the same size as the moon then the albedo difference, 10% to 30% roughly, would make your statement true in that they both receive the same amount of energy per Sq M but the earth reflects 20% more away
However you neglect the fact that the earth has a much larger surface area 510 million sq Kilometers to the moons 38 million sq K .
Hence the earth receives a far larger amount of energy than the moon, 13 times? as much, so despite losing some as SW the majority is still emitted as IR, much more in total than the moon.
Christos,
Does your model imply that the rotation speed can give a temperature higher than that expected for energy in equaling energy out.
In other words can your planets get hotter than their heat source allows
Circular reasoning in climate science
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/10/02/circular-reasoning-in-climate-science/
The difference between the temperatures on the earth and moon, is because the earth has an atmosphere and a surface composed of water, ice and modified soil.
Both receive the same amount of energy from the sun.
The earth is able to alter the amount of energy received by changes in albedo due to its altered physical makeup and atmosphere.
The temperature of every non heat producing [or minute heat producing in the case of the earth and moon] planet or moon is determined by how much energy they are able to receive and absorb.
Clouds are an important variable in that they can dramatically change the albedo of a planet.
The rotational speed of a planet has a minor role in the calculated average temperature that a planet can reach.
The reason that this so is that an airless planet or moon in synchronous orbit with only 1 side ever exposed to the sun has a temperature difference of all the energy absorbed and emitted on the sunny side matched with a half that has no exposure and hence limited ability to increase its temperature over that of space itself. Adding a half of nothing to a half dominated by the SB equation of returning energy to space dictates that that side can only heat up an eighth as much again as the whole globe would if evenly heated and radiating.
The sum of 1 and an 1/8 over 2 is an average of just over 55% for such a planet.
In other words the average temperature is cooler than the ideal black body temperature
However rotation can only increase the temperature dictated by SB at incredible speeds and in practice has a very minor role to play in temperature.
What is more important is the atmosphere and its ability to help conduct the heat rapidly around the globe leading to a more even radiation to space and a closer approximation to the ideal temperature.
Further it is the atmosphere itself that becomes the effective radiating surface [TOA] .
When the atmospheric GHG transmit the energy back to space they have enough energy to do so supplied by both the IR they absorb and emit and by the collisions with other particles which help them emit more often.
This increased atmospheric energy is measured as a temperature that describes the amount of motion and emission in the system determined by the energy the system has in it at the level you are measuring.
The temperature varies according to the atmospheric composition and height.
The energy output to space however is constant and consistent at all heights up to including and past the TOA.
A point often lost on everyone..
Whether you measure the energy out at surface level TOA or a million kilometers out in space from earth it is the same in total as it passes through the surface area at that distance.
The only reason a TOA is defined is that is where the energy in balances the energy out.
Below that level there is a lot of energy that is never meant to be going to space while there is a constant input from the sun.
It just bounces around everything staying inside the atmospheric barrier.
Earlier I likened it to a tap pouring into a bucket.
The bucket is full of energy [water] but the only water that goes out is what comes in.
The water races in currents around the bucket, bobbles up and splashes but does not get stored anywhere.
[Why cannot others see this?]
There is no energy imbalance in an open system with fixed input and output.
angech
“Christos,
Does your model imply that the rotation speed can give a temperature higher than that expected for energy in equaling energy out.
In other words can your planets get hotter than their heat source allows”
Of course not!
Planets always have their measured temperatures.
What New equation does is to theoretically calculate for planets without-atmosphere the mean surface temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech
“Christos,
Does your model imply that the rotation speed can give a temperature higher than that expected for energy in equaling energy out.”
I see now. What you are asking is if rotational speed can give a temperature higher than that expected for energy in equaling energy out in the case of the blackbody surface.
Yes, it can. And it always does. All planets and Moons without-atmosphere in solar system have higher than blackbody surface temperatures.
Only the slow rotating Mercury has lower than blackbody surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas | October 3, 2021 at 4:04 am | Reply
angech “Christos,
Does your model imply that the rotation speed can give a temperature higher than that expected for energy in equaling energy out.”
. What you are asking is if rotational speed can give a temperature higher than that expected for energy in equaling energy out in the case of the black body surface.
–
Yes, it can. And it always does. All planets and Moons without-atmosphere in solar system have higher than blackbody surface temperatures.
Only the slow rotating Mercury has lower than blackbody surface temperature.
–
I am not up to your level of maths.
It would be a little better if you had a clearer description of the route through your equations.
–
There are a number of issues in your explanation to consider.
You cannot say it always does and then give an exception.
– You cannot equate planets with weaker atmospheres than say a gas giant as having no atmospheres.[ I believe you treat earth as having no atmosphere?]
– Planets can have partial higher than black body temperatures only if they have a feature like an atmosphere that allows one level of the multilevel surface to heat up at the expense of another level going colder
Whether they do or do not have an atmosphere the maximum temperature at the top of atmosphere where energy in equals energy out cannot be increased past the temperature a perfect black body emits its outgoing energy at.
Which is what RIE has been saying.
It is against the law of physics.
The average temperature of the surface of a planet is fraught with definitional dilemmas.
Heat and temperature are two different entities related by the mass of the heated bodies that is actually heated. This is not the mass of the whole body when one speaks of surface temperatures.
When considering the temperature of planets with atmospheres capable of changing the albedo greatly [clouds] you will not be able to adapt your already changing constant to a constantly changing constant.
In the case of GHG which alter the emitting temperature of a section of the atmosphere I presume your constant changes to reflect the fact that the measurements have varied. Unless you specifically include a factor for GHG warming into your calculations or provide a more adequate basis for the constant calculation your theory is a helpful reminder of the fact that average surface temperatures are only educated guesses by the experts.
The subsurface temperature in the equatorial Pacific is now low in both the central and western Pacific. La Niña could be very long.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC007&year=2021&month=10
The Peruvian Current is surface-based, so melting Antarctic ice will bring more cold water toward the equator.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_samer_1.png
Some 7% of radiation emitted from the planet – some 240 W/m2 in total
– comes directly from the surface without being absorbed and re emitted.
The English and the maths still has me perplexed.
If in general I was to say
“Some 7% of radiation emitted from the planet”
It would mean that that 7% was part of a larger amount of energy being emitted from the planet into space.
Ie that the planet itself was emitting around 3400 W/m2 of which 240 W was coming directly from the earth surface without being absorbed and re emitted.
The option is that by the surface you are talking TOA as the surface because at the TOA every bit of IR going out is obviously meant to be the last emission from whatever atmospheric or surface surface source put it out.
Disingenuous to not specify what surface you are referring to but not illegal.
The third option is that you are conflating the 240 emitted out with the total IR being emitted and absorbed at both the surface and in the atmosphere that never makes it to space.
Which means Schwarzschild is giving an estimate of the energy level of the earth’s atmosphere and surface acting as a background for the emission of the 240 W to space.
I know you did not like my analogy of the atmosphere being like a full bucket of water with a tap running into it with variable amounts of water which perforce must drip over the side and out.
Hence there can be no extra energy in the system.
I do not like it myself.
But I still feel it is very apt.
This does not mean that the system lacks energy or the bucket water.
Without a full bucket the water would have to build up to to the level that it pours over.
Unless the bucket is full the water cannot flow out.
Does more water in imply that the bucket has grown larger to hold it?
Patently no.
When the water flows in faster the water flows out faster.
The bucket does not get bigger.
With energy the bucket is also always full.
Due to entropy any extra energy in a system must leave.
This is the basis behind the SB law.
The system is not an energy producer and,sadly, not an energy storer or battery.
Much as we would all like it to be to have the mythical imbalance real.
The difficulty lies in seeing that a hot object that is hot due to an external cause is not storing that energy and not capable of storing that energy in any long term sense.
The temperature is merely a reflection of the energy that has come into that system and is going out of that system.
This does not mean that the temperature is not real, only that no excess heat is being stored.
I really do not like this argument [lag effects with seasons for instance] but cannot accept free storage of energy.
Power flux emitted from the surface is shown here as 40 W/m2
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/long-content-page/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2008_big.jpg
The bucket is the storage (S). The change in storage is equal to inflow (I) less outflow (Q). The difference between inflow and outflow is the imbalance.
dS/dt = I – Q
That is the diagram I am referring to, thanks.
This is a more than adequate summation of the standard view.
“The bucket is the storage (S). The change in storage is equal to inflow (I) less outflow (Q). The difference between inflow and outflow is the imbalance. dS/dt = I – Q”
I remain conflicted by choice.
Why is the bucket the storage as you put it?
Why does the bucket have to increase in size?
The map is not the territory is the idea that the way we see the world isn’t reality itself. We don’t respond to reality. We respond to our internalized map of reality.
So.
The bucket is a construct that holds the storage..
The earth is a construct that holds energy.
The problem is that there is only so much earth.
There is only one bucket size.
The energy that the earth holds is not the energy of the sun.
The water that the bucket holds is not the tap flowing into the bucket.
No matter how much water you pour into a bucket it can only hold so much water, the rest has to spill away at increasing rates.
No matter how much energy you pour into earth [decreased albedo clouds, variation sun output], you end up with all that energy having to pour out.
The physical make up of the structure, the bucket, the earth does not alter. Entropy dictates that excess energy must leave a system unless an extra storage mechanism exists. Such as energy turning into matter [structure] which then does not have to flow out.
Consequently, you need to show a mechanism of storage of energy input rather than confuse it with a mechanism of excitement measuring the energy flow .
I really do not like this argument [lag effects with seasons for instance] but cannot accept free storage of energy.
Consider that experiment with the falling water bucket with holes in it.
The water is pouring out the holes before it is dropped.
Once dropped the water stops pouring out the holes [*].
Storage size is not the issue.
Pressure of input and size of output dictate the ability of water to flow into and out of the bucket.
[*] Note that as it begins to fall water actually does keep pouring out sideways for a short period of time only due to movement force inherent in the system due to pressure flow not gravity.
There may be room for a concept of pressure in the system as a very minor factor.
This would be similar to the interruptions due to absorption re emission of IR on the way out lengthening the path.
Which bis not to say that this in any way constitutes a mechanism of anything other than a very small temporary imbalance
What changes is the amount of water in the bucket.
https://slideplayer.com/slide/14136960/
Here I was thinking I was innovative. Thanks
5 Bathtub System Is A Model
Burning fossil fuels Inflow Deforestation Stock = Atmospheric greenhouse gases This bathtub actually provides a simple model of the climate system. Here, the stock of water in the tub represents the stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The faucet represents the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from fossil fuel emissions and deforestation. The drain represents processes that draw down atmospheric greenhouse gases, such as afforestation (growing more forests to store carbon) and dissolving carbon dioxide into the ocean. Afforestation Outflow Oceans
angech, it is an observation, it happens this way in the nature:
All planets and Moons without-atmosphere in solar system have higher than blackbody surface temperatures.
Only the slow rotating Mercury has lower than blackbody surface temperature.
Also, please visit the page in my site where I have a section with planets with atmosphere mean surface temperatures calculations. I devoted this section to the planets Earth, Titan and Venus’ mean surface temperatures with atmosphere…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446364348
angech, Earth receives 29% less SW EM energy from sun than Moon per sq. meter. It is almost a one third less!
With the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon receives, Earth appears to be a much warmer on average surface temperature than Moon planet.
Question:
How it happens Earth receiving only the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon does, for Earth to be a much warmer than Moon planet?
Because no one disputes Earth has 29% less SW EM available energy per sq. meter to interact with than Moon has.
What we observe here is that for 29% less available energy per sq. meter Earth ,nevertheless, is a much warmer planet!
Answer:
Earth’s surface is on average much warmer than Moon’s because of planet Earth’s 29,5 times shorter diurnal cycle, which is a result of Earth’s faster rotational spin.
Also, planet Earth is covered with water, and water has 5 times higher specific heat than the regolith covered lunar surface has.
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon we observe here.
It states that planets’ mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
angech, have you visited my new blog?
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589403016855._szw1280h1280_.jpg
When studying the Graph it becomes obvious that the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is an observed planetary physics law.
Please also visit my new blog:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/450665358
angech
“Whether they do or do not have an atmosphere the maximum temperature at the top of atmosphere where energy in equals energy out cannot be increased past the temperature a perfect black body emits its outgoing energy at.
Which is what RIE has been saying.
It is against the law of physics.”
The planet being a perfect blackbody is an assumption. And it is a mistaken and a misleading assumption. This assumption has not being confirmed by observations. Right the opposite happens.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No one assumes the planet is a blackbody/ Incoming power flux is measured at a point and the incident radiant flux on a sphere calculated. The average is some 341 W/m2. Some 101 W/m2 is reflected out. This leaves 239 W/m2 to heat the planet and then be emitted in the infrared at different heights dependent on photon paths between the surface and the top of atmosphere. We can then calculate an average emission temperature from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It is a reasonably good approximation even if the Earth is not a blackbody.
The 288K – 255K = 33C is not a reasonably good approximation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
288 K is a measured estimate of surface temperature – not relevant to this calculation.
“ the maximum temperature at the top of atmosphere where energy in equals energy out cannot be increased past the temperature a perfect black body emits its outgoing energy at.
It is against the law of physics.”
“”he planet being a perfect black body is an assumption. And it is a mistaken and a misleading assumption. This assumption has not being confirmed by observations. Right the opposite happens.”
The opposite of a black body is a perfectly reflecting sphere which absorbs no energy.
All bodies which absorb all the energy that falls on them act as black bodies.
You recognize this in your equations when you take out the albedo component [ the reflected energy].
Thus you treat all your planets as black bodies whether you admit this or not.
Your variable constant recognizes that despite the rotation exercise there is something else that modifies temperature dramatically at different surface levels
This is the presence of GHG and clouds in an atmospheric planet.
angech
“Your variable constant recognizes that despite the rotation exercise there is something else that modifies temperature dramatically at different surface levels”
Please explain, what variable constant?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Blackbody surface has some constant temperature because of the inner body’s outgoing to the surface energy.
The origin of this energy may be because of body having an inner source of energy, or body has accumulated a large enough amount of energy as a result of previous heating.
And blackbody has uniform surface temperature.
When surface interacts with incident radiative energy it does not behave according to the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law – it is an interaction and emission at the same instant.
Also we should notice that planet is solar irradiated from one side only, and even on the solar lit hemisphere the insolation intensity is not evenly distributed because of the planet’s spherical shape.
Not to forget, planet rotates…
Thus we conclude:
planets cannot be considered as blackbody surfaces
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“When surface interacts with incident radiative energy it does not behave according to the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law.”
The Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law is a law precisely because it works in every experiment ever performed. Christos is not doing an experiment, but just doing some curve fitting assuming that he has figured out why the numbers don’t work out. However, in any experiment that controls for variables (the way science is actually done), his formula does not work. You can not take a known law, curve fit it against about a dozen points and add parameters to it without considering how those parameters actually work. The way he should be doing it is to test how spin affects average temperature controlling for all other parameters, then once he has that figured out then he should look at the other parameters.
The laws of physics work on the earth in the same way that it does in space. The physical laws do not change, and therefore an experiment done on the earth with thousands of data points, controlling for variables, with a repeatable experiment is science. The scientific method (look it up it is an actual process) is used to assure that scientists come up with the best explanation for physical phenomenon. The Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law was derived using the scientific method. What Christos does is not science.
Further, the average temperature is meaningless according to the math of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law. The fourth power assures that the errors when taking average temperature versus actual temperature will be large. Someone recently on this blog actually computed the error, and it is undisputable that talking about an average temperature when talking about a planet and figuring out energy or the reverse is not going to be a correct answer.
I have not heard a climate scientist make this mistake of confusing average temperature versus actual temperature. As far as I can tell a complaint could be made that their grid size could be too large to make an accurate assessment, but I have not heard a climate scientist talk about trying to make the assessment based on one average temperature for the entire planet, and if they did then I would rightly criticize such an assessment.
Christos Vournas | October 4, 2021 at 1:08 pm |
Thus we conclude:planets cannot be considered as black body surfaces.
Then we can assume , infer or deduct nothing in the world.
The fact is we do make assumptions, models and comparisons and one of those is that we can consider planets as black body surfaces.
The question then is how correct the assumption is.
Obviously a planet that you can see is not a black body until it gets hot enough to emit visible light.
All the planets that we know of, through being visible, are not true black body surfaces.
Yet when they absorb radiation, the radiation they absorb is assumed to be re emitted according to the same rules that a black body of that absorption amount , size and surface area would behave.
– blackbody has uniform surface temperature.
True though physically impossible under most circumstances.
This is the reason average surface temperatures do not match [are lower than] temperatures on a true black body and can be improved a small amount by increasing the rotation rate.
-Black body surface has some constant temperature because of the inner body’s outgoing to the surface energy.
Not exactly.
A black body does not have to have any innate energy
It has a uniform temperature, like TOA, it emits all energy that it absorbs on any surface from all surfaces.
Internal energy is muddying the waters and another difference between a true black body and a planet.
Presumably it would create potential problems for your theory given that there is not a component for innate temperature of the planet.
atandb
“the average temperature is meaningless according to the math of the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody emission law. The fourth power assures that the errors when taking average temperature versus actual temperature will be large.”
Please explain, what you mean by that. What is the difference between the planet average surface temperature and the planet actual surface temperature?
What 288K is? Is it Earth’s average surface temperature, or is it Earth’s actual surface temperature?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The actual temperature is the temperature at a location. Say at the equator versus the pole. The average temperature over the entire planet is meaningless in this context. This is because in order to have reasonable accuracy the grid size would need to be small enough to minimize the temperature difference within the grid. Taking one average temperature for an entire planet leads to large temperature differences in this single grid. The pole is much colder than the equator. The daylit side of the earth is much warmer than the night side. The side in winter is much colder than the side in summer, etc. As far as I can tell from the studies that I have actually looked at (not very many), they use a three dimensional profile of temperatures to make these calculations, not a single point. My guess is that a two dimensional somewhat spherical surface is all that is required, however. It will not be completely spherical as the elevation of measurement would vary.
atandb, do you think that Earth’s average surface temperature 288K was not being correctly estimated at the year 1981?
I do not know what the average is, but I do know that it does not matter. The average will not yield the correct solution no matter how carefully it is derived. I am certain that any average derived has large errors as compared to a controlled laboratory experiment.
atandb
“I do not know what the average is, but I do know that it does not matter. The average will not yield the correct solution no matter how carefully it is derived. I am certain that any average derived has large errors as compared to a controlled laboratory experiment.”
What is your opinion about the current widely accepted theory claiming the GE being +33C ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth receives 29% less SW EM energy from sun than Moon per sq. meter. It is almost a one third less!
With the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon receives, Earth appears to be a much warmer on average surface temperature than Moon planet.
Question:
How it happens Earth receiving only the two thirds of SW EM energy Moon does, for Earth to be a much warmer than Moon planet?
Because no one disputes Earth has 29% less SW EM available energy per sq. meter to interact with than Moon has.
What we observe here is that for 29% less available energy per sq. meter Earth is, nevertheless, a much warmer planet!
Answer:
Earth’s surface is on average much warmer than Moon’s because of planet Earth’s 29,5 times shorter diurnal cycle, which is a result of Earth’s faster rotational spin.
Also, planet Earth is covered with water, and water has 5 times higher specific heat than the regolith covered lunar surface has.
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon we observe here.
It states that planets’ mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is not how much the earth retains. It is how much radiant heat it reflects due to the water surface area. It stores the excess heat in the oceans, and the negative heat in the ice.
What you call the ICE SHELF is a large block of ice sitting on solid earth. The 35 degree salt water at the bottom of the ocean next to the bottom of the block of ice block is eating, melting, it forming an overhang. Nature is taking water from the oceans, freezing it, and dropping it on the block of ice. The weight breaks it off. This keeps a a constant ocean height and constant surface temperature of the earth as the ice breaks off, floats away, and melts.
IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT!!!!!
If you think about it it also explains our economy.
The oceans are the government, money takers.
The Ice shelf is the middle class, money givers.
The household economy and state governments are the earth.
The Federal government is a BLOCK OF ICE
specific heat The ratio of the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a unit mass of a substance by one unit of temperature to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a similar mass of a reference material, usually water, by the same amount
-planet Earth is covered with water, and water has 5 times higher specific heat than the regolith covered lunar surface has..
Per square meter a water covered surface and a regolith surface take in exactly the same amount of energy.
Therefore they have to put out the same amount of energy.
There is no storage of heat in either system.
They are cold without the energy input. They have to put the energy input they receive out.
You cannot make up a variable storage of energy story to explain the temperature difference.
This is how the 25th solar cycle goes – after a momentary increase again a strong decrease in solar wind speed.
https://i.ibb.co/Y3gh09R/latest2day.gif
“Over the course of a solar cycle the solar wind modulates the fraction of the lower-energy GCR particles such that a majority cannot penetrate to Earth near solar maximum. Near solar minimum, in the absence of many coronal mass ejections and their corresponding magnetic fields, GCR particles have easier access to Earth.”
https://i.ibb.co/Bty2swR/onlinequery.gif
NASA 2006
The ocean, they say, is Earth’s “biggest heat bucket.”
And like a bucket placed under an overflowing sink, the ocean is filling up with the heat that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are preventing from escaping to space.
Convenient?
“– blackbody has uniform surface temperature.
True though physically impossible under most circumstances.
This is the reason average surface temperatures do not match [are lower than] temperatures on a true black body and can be improved a small amount by increasing the rotation rate.”
angech, please visit the page I have prepared in my site:
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448752897
When studying the Graphs it becomes obvious that the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” is an observed planetary physics law.
Graphs consider the Tsat /Te ratios of all the planets and moons without-atmosphere (or a very thin atmosphere like Earth’s and Titan’s) in solar system.
It is obvious, that the satellite measured planet mean surface temperatures (except the slower rotating Mercury and Moon) are higher than their corresponding planet blackbody temperatures.
Because, as you can see, (except the slower rotating Mercury and Moon) the Tsat /Te > 1
it is a confirmation the planet average surface temperatures (except the slower rotating Mercury and Moon) are higher than temperatures on a true black body.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech, please visit the page I have prepared in my site:
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448752897
When studying the Graphs it becomes obvious that the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” is an observed planetary physics law.
Graphs consider the Tsat /Te ratios of all the planets and moons without-atmosphere (or a very thin atmosphere like Earth’s and Titan’s) in solar system.
It is obvious, that the satellite measured planet mean surface temperatures (except the slower rotating Mercury and Moon) are higher than their corresponding planet blackbody temperatures.
Because, as you can see, (except the slower rotating Mercury and Moon) the Tsat /Te > 1
it is a confirmation the planet average surface temperatures (except the slower rotating Mercury and Moon) are higher than temperatures on a true black body.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
angech, please visit the page I have prepared in my site:
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/448752897
Graphs consider the Tsat /Te ratios of all the planets and moons without-atmosphere (or a very thin atmosphere like Earth’s and Titan’s) in solar system.
It is obvious, that the satellite measured planet mean surface temperatures (except the slower rotating Mercury and Moon) are higher than their corresponding planet blackbody temperatures.
Because, as you can see, (except the slower rotating Mercury and Moon) the Tsat /Te > 1
Christos, I have looked at your site. It is incomprehensible due to failure to label and explain all the terms clearly.
I am impressed that Ron Clutz, amongst others found it interesting.
This does not mean it is correct.
The problems you have are accounting for internal heating and where you draw the line at defining planetary surface temperature.
This is not the same as planetary temperature as estimated by satellite.
One is traditionally a TOA reading and the other, on planets with a surface and an atmosphere the temperature of a thin strip of the atmosphere and surface which in no way corresponds to the actual emission to space.
A satellite evaluating earth from Neptune would see a much colder body than we actually are.
Since you cannot measure the true atmospheric composition from a distance and rely on opaque estimations or guesstimates of other factors which are not known for your formula it cannot be used.
The temperature on Venus was not truly known until probes were sent there. Working out your formula after the temperature has been measured rather than i priori is a problem.
Relying on estimates of temperatures of other planets is also fraught until we get actual data from them.
Thank you angech for your interest of my work!
I am always here willing to explain everything concerned with the New theory and the New equation.
In order to comprehend the New theory, a reader should have been already questioning the current Greenhouse Gasses Warming theory.
One should “see” by himself that trace amounts of greenhouse gasses in a very thin earth’s atmosphere cannot cause any significant greenhouse effect (1% H2O vapor, 0,04% CO2).
Also, one should “see” by himself the old planet surface blackbody temperature is a very much mistaken and misleading in every planetary case, either without-atmosphere or with atmosphere.
There is also the need to correctly estimate the incident not reflected portion of solar SW EM energy. It is the portion which when interacting with planetary surface is not being reflected (diffusely or specularly), but being transformed into LW EM outgoing to space energy.
The coupled Φ(1 – a) term gives the correct “energy in” amount for the entire planet estimation:
energy in = πr²Φ(1-a)*S (W)
“Energy in” is not considered in the New theory’ approach as “absorbed”. Only a tiny portion of it is actually absorbed in the inner layers. The most of “energy in” is instantly transformed into LW EM outgoing to space energy. That is how the solar lit hours IR outgoing EM energy occurs.
That is why in the New planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature equation the entire “energy in” = πr²Φ(1-a)*S (W) portion is considered as the IR instantly outgoing EM energy.
And this exactly, the IR instantly outgoing EM energy, is what determines the average surface temperature Tmean.
That is why there is not any mystics in the New equation. The New equation is capable to very much precisely theoretically calculate the planet mean surface temperatures because the equation is based on a very much solid theoretical base.
Best regards,
Christos
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Most global energy content is as heat in oceans with an appreciable portion as latent heat in liquid water and water vapour. The change in heat content is equal to energy in less energy out.
Δ(h&w) = Ein – Eout
Energy in is from the sun. The net quantity doesn’t change with orbital variability. A small amount is in UV frequencies. Energy out is a function of albedo and planetary heat content. Variability in outgoing energy is an order of magnitude greater than that of incoming energy.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed4.1_anom_toa_net_flux-all-sky_march-2000tojune-2019.png
There are a lot of dubious ideas – but unless they can be shown empirically to change emissions or albedo it is junk science.
” Energy out is a function of albedo and planetary heat content. Variability in outgoing energy is an order of magnitude greater than that of incoming energy.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Temperature and thus emitted energy out does not change with the rate of planetary rotation. That’s junk science.
Sorry RIE
Surface temperature of a planet
The surface temperature of a planet can be estimated by modifying the effective-temperature calculation to account for emissivity and temperature variation.The area of the planet that absorbs the power from the star is A abs which is some fraction of the total surface area Atotal = 4πr2, where r is the radius of the planet. This area intercepts some of the power which is spread over the surface of a sphere of radius D. We also allow the planet to reflect some of the incoming radiation by incorporating a parameter a called the albedo. An albedo of 1 means that all the radiation is reflected, an albedo of 0 means all of it is absorbed.
The next assumption we can make is that although the entire planet is not at the same temperature, it will radiate as if it had a temperature T over an area Arad which is again some fraction of the total area of the planet. There is also a factor ε, which is the emissivity and represents atmospheric effects. ε ranges from 1 to 0 with 1 meaning the planet is a perfect blackbody and emits all the incident power. The Stefan–Boltzmann law gives an expression for the power radiated by the planet:
Equating these two expressions and rearranging gives an expression for the surface temperature:
This is the bit you might find interesting
NB Rotation does effect average temp bringing it closer to the overall black body value.
“Note the ratio of the two areas. Common assumptions for this ratio are 1/4 for a rapidly rotating body and 1/2 for a slowly rotating body, or a tidally locked body on the sunlit side. This ratio would be 1 for the subsolar point, the point on the planet directly below the sun and gives the maximum temperature of the planet — a factor of √2 (1.414) greater than the effective temperature of a rapidly rotating planet”
Stefan-Boltzmann does not work for the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere.
thank you
On another note, here’s an interesting opinion on covid origins.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-lab-leak-virology-origins-pandemic-11633462827?st=1to0ewlyldbbiqj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
On a life’s too short note – there are no interesting opinions on CoV-2 origins.
The Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law
Here is the planet surface IR EM energy emittance Universal Law
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
The solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) does not emit as a flat surface in accordance to the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
4πr²σΤmean⁴ (W)
No, the solar irradiated rotating sphere (planet) emits as a rotating planet in accordance to both, the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law and the Newly discovered Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
–
Let’s continue…
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos bases his nonsense on a formula that doesn’t calculate the surface temperature of planets with atmospheres. Then adds constants that have no physical basis to fit a formula to dodgy data. And incessantly copies and pastes.
Robert
“…. his nonsense … no physical basis … dodgy data … incessantly …”
Robert, once you called my work “The New Physics”. What happened since?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
New physics on a blog can’t be taken seriously. What’s needed is a sound grasp of the old physics.
Robert I. Ellison | October 7, 2021 at 3:29 pm |
“Stefan-Boltzmann does not work for the surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere.”
Unbelievable – after everything you have claimed about, you have said so!
The SB law can not be used to calculate Earth’s surface temperature.
What is needed is a sound grasp of math and the scientific method. This thread is replete with examples of really bad math and misuse of science. The last time I checked doing an experiment was not yet cancelled from the scientific method.
Robert I. Ellison | October 7, 2021 at 6:19 pm |
“Temperature and thus emitted energy out does not change with the rate of planetary rotation. That’s junk science.”
Emitted energy out does not change with the rate of planetary rotation…
Planet average (mean) surface temperature changes with the rate of planetary rotation. It is called Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Robert
“The SB law can not be used to calculate Earth’s surface temperature.”
Why?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you do not understand that – and you don’t – it shows how hopeless your grasp of the simpler bit of climate science is.
Robert
“it shows how hopeless your grasp of the simpler bit of climate science is.”
You mean your hopeless grasp of the trace gas CO2 0.04% content in a very thin Earth’s atmosphere?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com