Remember me
▼ Content

2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
17-01-2021 01:03
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
@Harvey, this is some of the math that I'm learning for wood working. If I want to build a custom wind turbine/ windmill then this will come in handy. This is because in some ways if the structure is like a train trestle https://images.app.goo.gl/eC37FAGSV72Ni8NK9 then trig can help to calculate how much stress it can handle. That's just another way of saying force or weight acting on something.
With the science experiment, it's more about testing a hypothesis based on theory. At the same time I can calculate orbital velocity and kinetic energy from that. It uses well known formulas and with wood working, I'll need to be able to do my own math.


Yeah, good luck with that. I learned a lot of math, and quite a few other things in school, much of which I never really found much use. Fortunately, I learned a few things, that can be applied, when learn to us the tool, I've actually found a need for, and a classroom is no longer needed.



I'm actually learning on my own using various online options. I almost forgot the library and bookstores. Bookstores are more about physics, better selection while libraries have many books about math that are very helpful.
I'm actually going to combine a wind turbine with a windmill. Quad copters really don't require math. As we've discussed before, it's more about programmable logic circuits or PLCs. That's about communicating with a chip.
With working with the wind, trig can analyze stress while calculus would calculate air flow. Then again, Green Energy people would love me for it but not why it's something I'd pursue. History does play a role.

p.s., Dutch windmills are quite efficient just as are modern turbines. Today it's about hybrids and I am a hybrid.


p.s.s., it took a multi million dollar computer to improve on the design that the Wright Bros. did for the propeller. Like Otto Lilienthal, they knew math. That's if you're familiar with history.


Harvey, you can't keep up. Americans have screwed me out of my life for that very reason. People who have an easy life are simply better.
Attached image:


Edited on 17-01-2021 01:44
17-01-2021 03:05
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
@Harvey et al,
This is what Jesus said about serving 2 masters. You cannot serve the US of A and him. It's one or the other.
Matthew 6:24;
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Serving in the military is not serving God. It's about supporting the USA and it's Constitution. The preamble is a part of that Constitution.
One of the first rights granted in the Bill of Rights is Freedom of Religion. Yet that same religion can say that the Constitution does not support it. Who is right? The Catholic Church or the Baptist Church? They disagree with each other. ie., they both can't be right.
Yet when the Bible says
Matthew 6:24; "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

And then says John 18:36;
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Sadly, in the Navy and at sea, ships must be maintained. Most work days are spent doing maintenance because equipment needs to be maintained. Very much of this world. And I doubt anyone would be happy about losing a ship at sea because it is poorly maintained.
This is where hull techs and hole snipes do the work. Most people don't like it when it gets over 110º F. That was my watch station and it was quite cool.

With 6:24, are you a monk or a nun? NO? Doesn't really apply then. Keeping a ship afloat requires a team effort. And since I served on 2 aircraft carriers, I enjoyed visiting Vultures Row. It was the best spot on a carrier to watch TOLs. Take offs and landings. You could get seasick at night.
The ship following would pitch from port to starboard. Then you'd know how much a carrier moves in the water. God, what Christians miss because they're in church praying. Seasickness and nausea.

But you guys have never crossed an ocean on a boat, have you? Let alone 3. Just trying to find some common ground here. Myself, loved being in the middle of an ocean. Nothing but water in every direction. It's just beautiful. Just a shame you guys can't experience it.

The ship following at night and probably during the day was if an aircraft failed to land. You know, they either crashed into the fantail or hit the water. They were there for recovery operations only. You couldn't expect someone to survive crashing an airplane could you? Just a normal part of operations. Just a part of operations. You do lose people, right? Losses are anticipated.
The recovery operations are actually about the craft itself and no onboard personnel.

Edited on 17-01-2021 03:36
17-01-2021 03:39
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
ie, a good day is when no one dies. But those days happen. And this is in peace time. People still die.
17-01-2021 03:54
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
With this story https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/uss-kitty-hawk/ I was on the next watch after it happened. I doubted the stories I heard until I received a newspaper clipping from my mother about it.
Then I believed. At the same time, things were much worse than what was reported. I was a part of P-4 Division 3MMR. Nothing to you guys, onboard, we knew what happened. Phone talkers were and still might be the voice of what happens on a US Naval Ship. We knew.
And to this day, you guys just have no idea of what really happened. But you can read about it and have your opinions but you will always be wrong.
And for those of us that know, we'll just say you don't.
An FYI, 6 Russians died that day. Just was never reported. You weren't there. And it could've been us. Just not acceptable.
When fires were lost in a boiler, this caused water hammers. A ruptured steam line kills everyone in the engine room. We got lucky.
And if you're wondering, an aircraft carrier never strays from its battle group like we did. There was a lot of chatter on the phones. We were on our own. But you guys understand nothing of a battle group. And you're American, right?
Edited on 17-01-2021 04:06
17-01-2021 04:10
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
Just an easy situation for ya'all to deal with.
17-01-2021 16:05
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
Nothing personal Harvey, in the US, it's not about working together. It's just about being better. Why I have to work on my projects alone. I could do less but then would have less. Actually, wouldn't hope to have a life. My service connected hearing loss is because of having a Norwegian accent while serving in the Navy. I wasn't "one of them". Why I should've gone to school.
And with the boiler, a part of the screw from the Russian submarine broke off in the fuel oil tank. That slowed the leak and the amount of seawater getting into that fuel oil in that tank. If the screw didn't break off but just ruptured the tank, who knows what would've happened.
21-01-2021 04:16
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


Does anybody have another reason to suggest as the cause of sudden stratospheric warming?

The puzzling thing to me is there are no sun rays hitting the north pole right now.

If you read up on the ozone creation cycle (Chapman), it says the chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat.

So IF ozone is only created from UV light directly from the sun, any ozone over the North pole would have had to had gotten there by wind, not formed there.

But the heat is apparently released during the formation of ozone.

So IF the ozone was already formed by the time it got to the North pole, has it really retained enough heat to warm the stratosphere by ~ 50 C in a couple days???

My understanding is Ozone forms when direct sunlight hits the stratosphere and a byproduct of ozone forming is it blocks UV-B.Not sure about it blowing around and creating warming.Its in the stratosphere at -65.Warming what exactly.It is a long way from the surface





And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

If you take the position of IBdamned, it appears you have no choice but to deny its existence... even though the phenomenon has been widely observed and can be predicted some days in advance.

I don't think it's correct to say it's caused by ozone that retains heat and is blown up there from down south.

Perhaps that means ozone is being created by something other than direct sun rays, which generates heat.

There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford

Perhaps it is something like that which creates ozone...



Edited on 21-01-2021 04:17
21-01-2021 04:42
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


Does anybody have another reason to suggest as the cause of sudden stratospheric warming?

The puzzling thing to me is there are no sun rays hitting the north pole right now.

If you read up on the ozone creation cycle (Chapman), it says the chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat.

So IF ozone is only created from UV light directly from the sun, any ozone over the North pole would have had to had gotten there by wind, not formed there.

But the heat is apparently released during the formation of ozone.

So IF the ozone was already formed by the time it got to the North pole, has it really retained enough heat to warm the stratosphere by ~ 50 C in a couple days???

My understanding is Ozone forms when direct sunlight hits the stratosphere and a byproduct of ozone forming is it blocks UV-B.Not sure about it blowing around and creating warming.Its in the stratosphere at -65.Warming what exactly.It is a long way from the surface





And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

If you take the position of IBdamned, it appears you have no choice but to deny its existence... even though the phenomenon has been widely observed and can be predicted some days in advance.

I don't think it's correct to say it's caused by ozone that retains heat and is blown up there from down south.

Perhaps that means ozone is being created by something other than direct sun rays, which generates heat.

There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford

Perhaps it is something like that which creates ozone...



I'll need to take time to consider the experiment. When you started this thread, what interested me most was that a column of ozone shifted. Thermodynamics required that shift to be caused by something.
And everyone needs to be mindful that this is the stratosphere and not the troposphere. Most of this discussion is based on the stratosphere.
If you mates ( ya'all) don't get it, a shift in the troposphere might have proceeded a shift in the stratosphere. And what you guys need to understand above everything else, this is getting into PhD level science.
To give you guys a basic clue or understanding, if someone with a PhD had the answer, then we'd know it. It's sad to say that you guys are clueless as they are.
There is a possible answer though. The simple answer is that the water flowing into the Arctic from the Bering Straits has warmed while the warm water flowing into the arctic from the Gulf Stream has slightly cooled.
That can create variations in stratospheric warming because of thermal radiation variance. That's not the same as the amount of background radiation found in our atmosphere. Radiance is not an exchange of heat.

For ITN, radiance through the tropopause is a transfer of heat. Because the heat is not transferred through an entity such as a molecule, it is ignored. With particles, it is accepted that they transfer much heat as mass and not as a waveform such as hc / lamda = E. Just basic science.

p.s., I know you ITN, you'll try to nitpik the science. Just staying one step ahead of you Bro.

Made changes to keep context straight.
Edited on 21-01-2021 04:53
21-01-2021 05:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8629)
Spongy Iris wrote: And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

... by first defining it unambiguously to within a specific margin of error, and then demonstrating/showing it with a valid dataset that supports the specified margin of error.

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy!

Spongy Iris wrote: If you take the position of IBdamned, it appears you have no choice but to deny its existence.

Only because you are illiterate.

I do not deny its existence; I do not know what "it" is.

Instead, I thoroughly question its existence and demand that it be unambiguously defined with a specified margin of error.

Hey, would I be correct in pointing out that you STILL have not unambiguously defined whatever the fúúkk it is you believe you are talking about, much less specified any margin of error for "it"? Are you simply trying to disguise your continued belief in Santa Claus? Is that why you don't dare define "it"?

Spongy Iris still believes in Santa Claus! Too funny.

Spongy Iris thinks he is insulting me by claiming that I deny the existence of Santa Claus! Too funny. I feel soooooo insulted.

Spongy Iris wrote: .. even though the phenomenon has been widely observed and can be predicted some days in advance.

It's a simple matter to predict the completely undefined, especially if you are the one who is claiming that it was "observed" (in the completely invalid passive voice).

Yes, children can be easily fooled into believing they actually observed Santa Claus.

Spongy Iris wrote: There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

Please, think for yourself once or twice. The objective was to create an antenna, not an atmospheric layer. We're talking about a volume of 8.64 cubic meters, or a cube of 2.05 meters each in height, length and width. It really isn't possible to create an ionosphere with that amount of material.

They were just trying to create an antenna.

Secondly, you knew it was Wikipedia you were reading so you have only yourself to blame for letting any of the misinformation, the disinformation or any of the myriad of errors throughout Wikipedia lead you astray. Well, come to think of it, it does explain why you routinely spout off really stupid crap. It is totally your own fault.


.
Attached image:

21-01-2021 05:35
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

... by first defining it unambiguously to within a specific margin of error, and then demonstrating/showing it with a valid dataset that supports the specified margin of error.

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy!




OMG, you are so HOT!!! when you post like that. Want to squeeze my lemon?
Hope you like lemonade!!!
21-01-2021 05:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8629)
James___ wrote:Want to squeeze my lemon?
Hope you like lemonade!!!

Is this your way of saying that life gave you lemons?




.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-01-2021 06:06
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Want to squeeze my lemon?
Hope you like lemonade!!!

Is this your way of saying that life gave you lemons?




.


Son, you're not an American. You missed the reference. Life didn't give me lemons. It simply gave me Americans. I prefer lemons but...
21-01-2021 06:14
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2020)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Want to squeeze my lemon?
Hope you like lemonade!!!

Is this your way of saying that life gave you lemons?




.

Life didn't give me lemons. It simply gave me Americans. I prefer lemons but...


Are you claiming to be able to make lemons out of lemonade?


Showing up with a gun at all is just weird and gross.--tmiddles
21-01-2021 06:37
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Want to squeeze my lemon?
Hope you like lemonade!!!

Is this your way of saying that life gave you lemons?




.

Life didn't give me lemons. It simply gave me Americans. I prefer lemons but...


Are you claiming to be able to make lemons out of lemonade?



What I am saying is that Americans are difficult to work with.
21-01-2021 11:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


Does anybody have another reason to suggest as the cause of sudden stratospheric warming?

The puzzling thing to me is there are no sun rays hitting the north pole right now.

If you read up on the ozone creation cycle (Chapman), it says the chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat.

So IF ozone is only created from UV light directly from the sun, any ozone over the North pole would have had to had gotten there by wind, not formed there.

But the heat is apparently released during the formation of ozone.

So IF the ozone was already formed by the time it got to the North pole, has it really retained enough heat to warm the stratosphere by ~ 50 C in a couple days???

My understanding is Ozone forms when direct sunlight hits the stratosphere and a byproduct of ozone forming is it blocks UV-B.Not sure about it blowing around and creating warming.Its in the stratosphere at -65.Warming what exactly.It is a long way from the surface





And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

Nothing to explain. The temperature of the stratosphere is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you take the position of IBdamned, it appears you have no choice but to deny its existence... even though the phenomenon has been widely observed and can be predicted some days in advance.

Nope. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either. There is no observation. Prediction of random numbers is meaningless.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I don't think it's correct to say it's caused by ozone that retains heat and is blown up there from down south.

Ozone does not retain heat. It is not possible to trap heat.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Perhaps that means ozone is being created by something other than direct sun rays, which generates heat.

Heat is not generated. It has no temperature. The Sun emits a wide spectrum of light. UV and visible light do n0ot heat the Earth or the atmosphere. Infrared light heats both the atmosphere and the surface. Most of the energy emitted by the Sun is infrared light.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

Perhaps it is something like that which creates ozone...

It is not possible to establish an orbit in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
21-01-2021 11:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
James___ wrote:
I'll need to take time to consider the experiment. When you started this thread, what interested me most was that a column of ozone shifted.

Ozone isn't in a column.
James___ wrote:
Thermodynamics required that shift to be caused by something.

Nope. Just wind.
James___ wrote:
And everyone needs to be mindful that this is the stratosphere and not the troposphere.

So?
James___ wrote:
Most of this discussion is based on the stratosphere.

So?
James___ wrote:
If you mates ( ya'all) don't get it, a shift in the troposphere might have proceeded a shift in the stratosphere. And what you guys need to understand above everything else, this is getting into PhD level science.

A PhD is not God. Science is not a PhD. It is not a license, degree, university, government agency, academy, or even people at all. It is a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less.
James___ wrote:
To give you guys a basic clue or understanding, if someone with a PhD had the answer, then we'd know it.

Irrelevant. False authority fallacy.
James___ wrote:
It's sad to say that you guys are clueless as they are.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
There is a possible answer though. The simple answer is that the water flowing into the Arctic from the Bering Straits has warmed while the warm water flowing into the arctic from the Gulf Stream has slightly cooled.

Random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of any current in the ocean.
James___ wrote:
That can create variations in stratospheric warming because of thermal radiation variance.

Buzzword fallacy. Junk science.
James___ wrote:
That's not the same as the amount of background radiation found in our atmosphere. Radiance is not an exchange of heat.

Radiant heating certainly DOES exist. Heat is not exchanged. It either exists, or it doesn't. Heat has no temperature.
James___ wrote:
For ITN, radiance through the tropopause is a transfer of heat.

You can't transfer heat.
James___ wrote:
Because the heat is not transferred through an entity such as a molecule, it is ignored.

You can't transfer heat.
James___ wrote:
With particles, it is accepted that they transfer much heat as mass and not as a waveform such as hc / lamda = E. Just basic science.

You can't transfer heat. You are not using science. You are making random shit up.
James___ wrote:
p.s., I know you ITN, you'll try to nitpik the science.

You are not using science.
James___ wrote:
Just staying one step ahead of you Bro.

You are not using science.
James___ wrote:
Made changes to keep context straight.

What context?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
21-01-2021 11:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Want to squeeze my lemon?
Hope you like lemonade!!!

Is this your way of saying that life gave you lemons?




.

Life didn't give me lemons. It simply gave me Americans. I prefer lemons but...


Are you claiming to be able to make lemons out of lemonade?

I think he's trying to claim you can make lemonade out of Americans.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-01-2021 01:57
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


Does anybody have another reason to suggest as the cause of sudden stratospheric warming?

The puzzling thing to me is there are no sun rays hitting the north pole right now.

If you read up on the ozone creation cycle (Chapman), it says the chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat.

So IF ozone is only created from UV light directly from the sun, any ozone over the North pole would have had to had gotten there by wind, not formed there.

But the heat is apparently released during the formation of ozone.

So IF the ozone was already formed by the time it got to the North pole, has it really retained enough heat to warm the stratosphere by ~ 50 C in a couple days???

My understanding is Ozone forms when direct sunlight hits the stratosphere and a byproduct of ozone forming is it blocks UV-B.Not sure about it blowing around and creating warming.Its in the stratosphere at -65.Warming what exactly.It is a long way from the surface





And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

Nothing to explain. The temperature of the stratosphere is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you take the position of IBdamned, it appears you have no choice but to deny its existence... even though the phenomenon has been widely observed and can be predicted some days in advance.

Nope. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either. There is no observation. Prediction of random numbers is meaningless.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I don't think it's correct to say it's caused by ozone that retains heat and is blown up there from down south.

Ozone does not retain heat. It is not possible to trap heat.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Perhaps that means ozone is being created by something other than direct sun rays, which generates heat.

Heat is not generated. It has no temperature. The Sun emits a wide spectrum of light. UV and visible light do n0ot heat the Earth or the atmosphere. Infrared light heats both the atmosphere and the surface. Most of the energy emitted by the Sun is infrared light.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

Perhaps it is something like that which creates ozone...

It is not possible to establish an orbit in the atmosphere.


You have stated there is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere in other posts. You must have been speaking entirely theoretically I suppose...

Do you not consider the ISS to be orbiting in our atmosphere? Where do you draw the line between our atmosphere and space?


22-01-2021 02:21
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

... by first defining it unambiguously to within a specific margin of error, and then demonstrating/showing it with a valid dataset that supports the specified margin of error.

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy!

Spongy Iris wrote: If you take the position of IBdamned, it appears you have no choice but to deny its existence.

Only because you are illiterate.

I do not deny its existence; I do not know what "it" is.

Instead, I thoroughly question its existence and demand that it be unambiguously defined with a specified margin of error.

Hey, would I be correct in pointing out that you STILL have not unambiguously defined whatever the fúúkk it is you believe you are talking about, much less specified any margin of error for "it"? Are you simply trying to disguise your continued belief in Santa Claus? Is that why you don't dare define "it"?

Spongy Iris still believes in Santa Claus! Too funny.

Spongy Iris thinks he is insulting me by claiming that I deny the existence of Santa Claus! Too funny. I feel soooooo insulted.

Spongy Iris wrote: .. even though the phenomenon has been widely observed and can be predicted some days in advance.

It's a simple matter to predict the completely undefined, especially if you are the one who is claiming that it was "observed" (in the completely invalid passive voice).

Yes, children can be easily fooled into believing they actually observed Santa Claus.

Spongy Iris wrote: There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

Please, think for yourself once or twice. The objective was to create an antenna, not an atmospheric layer. We're talking about a volume of 8.64 cubic meters, or a cube of 2.05 meters each in height, length and width. It really isn't possible to create an ionosphere with that amount of material.

They were just trying to create an antenna.

Secondly, you knew it was Wikipedia you were reading so you have only yourself to blame for letting any of the misinformation, the disinformation or any of the myriad of errors throughout Wikipedia lead you astray. Well, come to think of it, it does explain why you routinely spout off really stupid crap. It is totally your own fault.


.


The term sudden stratospheric warming refers to what is observed in the stratosphere:- a rapid warming (up to about 50 ­°C in just a couple of days), between 10 km and 50 km above the earth's surface. This is so high up that we don't feel the 'warming' ourselves. However, usually a few weeks later, we can start to see knock-on effects on the jet stream, which in turn effects our weather lower down (in the troposphere).

Every year in winter, strong westerly winds circle around the pole high up in the stratosphere. This is called the stratospheric polar vortex and it circulates around cold air high over the Arctic.

In some years, the winds in the polar vortex temporarily weaken, or even reverse to flow from east to west. The air then descends very rapidly in the polar vortex and the temperature in the stratosphere rises very rapidly, as much as 50­°C over only a few days; hence the term sudden stratospheric warming.

As the air from high up in the stratosphere disperses, it can affect the shape of the jet stream as the air sinks from the stratosphere into the troposphere. It is this change in the jet stream that causes our weather to change.

The stratospheric sudden warming can sometimes cause the jet stream to 'snake' more.

Currently we can reliably predict individual sudden stratospheric warmings about a week in advance, and we can detect them early on with satellite and other observations. The sudden stratospheric warming usually takes a few weeks to influence our weather at the surface, or into the next month.


22-01-2021 03:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


Does anybody have another reason to suggest as the cause of sudden stratospheric warming?

The puzzling thing to me is there are no sun rays hitting the north pole right now.

If you read up on the ozone creation cycle (Chapman), it says the chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat.

So IF ozone is only created from UV light directly from the sun, any ozone over the North pole would have had to had gotten there by wind, not formed there.

But the heat is apparently released during the formation of ozone.

So IF the ozone was already formed by the time it got to the North pole, has it really retained enough heat to warm the stratosphere by ~ 50 C in a couple days???

My understanding is Ozone forms when direct sunlight hits the stratosphere and a byproduct of ozone forming is it blocks UV-B.Not sure about it blowing around and creating warming.Its in the stratosphere at -65.Warming what exactly.It is a long way from the surface





And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

Nothing to explain. The temperature of the stratosphere is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you take the position of IBdamned, it appears you have no choice but to deny its existence... even though the phenomenon has been widely observed and can be predicted some days in advance.

Nope. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth either. There is no observation. Prediction of random numbers is meaningless.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I don't think it's correct to say it's caused by ozone that retains heat and is blown up there from down south.

Ozone does not retain heat. It is not possible to trap heat.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Perhaps that means ozone is being created by something other than direct sun rays, which generates heat.

Heat is not generated. It has no temperature. The Sun emits a wide spectrum of light. UV and visible light do n0ot heat the Earth or the atmosphere. Infrared light heats both the atmosphere and the surface. Most of the energy emitted by the Sun is infrared light.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

Perhaps it is something like that which creates ozone...

It is not possible to establish an orbit in the atmosphere.


You have stated there is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere in other posts. You must have been speaking entirely theoretically I suppose...

Yes. There is a temperature inversion in the stratosphere. Temperature goes up with increasing altitude. Thermal energy density drops with increasing altitude however. thermal energy does NOT increase with increasing altitude. The temperature of the stratosphere is unknown.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you not consider the ISS to be orbiting in our atmosphere?

No.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Where do you draw the line between our atmosphere and space?

There is no 'line'. As far as anything with an orbit is concerned, you can't put anything into orbit where there is drag from an atmosphere. Such an orbit is unstable. The object will fall and burn up, or just disintegrate, depending on how deep in the atmosphere the object and what the object is made of.
Earth's atmosphere is about 12km varying about 9km from equator to pole.

The ISS is in a stable orbit above Earth's atmosphere, at an altitude of 432km on a 51 deg plane, giving it a wonderful view of the entire Earth over time.

If you are interested, you can try to spot the station at night. See https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/index.cfm


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-01-2021 03:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8629)
Spongy Iris wrote: The term sudden stratospheric warming refers to what is observed in the stratosphere:- a rapid warming (up to about 50 ­°C in just a couple of days), between 10 km and 50 km above the earth's surface.

I have good news for you! You can forget about it; it has to be a scam. The word "sudden" tells you that it should be "sudden" and not take all day, much less multiple days. That's enough time to write an en entire essay on just how un-sudden it is. You can paint a house and it will dry before the scam happens.

Spongy Iris wrote: This is so high up that we don't feel the 'warming' ourselves.

So you are saying that it looks and feels exactly the same as nothing even happening, yes?

Spongy Iris wrote: However, usually a few weeks later, we can start to see knock-on effects on the jet stream, ...

When have you ever seen an effect on a jet stream?

Spongy Iris wrote: ... which in turn effects our weather lower down (in the troposphere).

Well that was thoroughly specific. Clearly this qualifies as an unambiguous definition. I'm totally satisfied.

Spongy Iris wrote: Every year in winter, strong westerly winds circle around the pole high up in the stratosphere.

Such winds occur every day.

Spongy Iris wrote: This is called the stratospheric polar vortex and it circulates around cold air high over the Arctic.

All air that is high over the Arctic is cold ... so that really isn't any sort of surprise. Any air being circulated by wind high over the Arctic will be cold. We already have a word for the wind that does that. That word is "wind."

Spongy Iris wrote: In some years, the winds in the polar vortex temporarily weaken, or even reverse to flow from east to west.

Every day the polar winds temporarily weaken or even reverse direction. You should be embarrassed that I am the first person to teach you this.

Spongy Iris wrote: As the air from high up in the stratosphere disperses, it can affect the shape of the jet stream

Many things affect currents, both in air and water.

Spongy Iris wrote: ... as the air sinks from the stratosphere into the troposphere.

That's how it works in all hurricanes, tornadoes, and in many other storms and heavy winds.

Spongy Iris wrote: It is this change in the jet stream that causes our weather to change.

Actually, it is only one factor in many that causes our weather to change.

Spongy Iris wrote: Currently we can reliably predict individual sudden stratospheric warmings about a week in advance,

Some fringe Christian sects have claimed to have predicted Rapture months in advance. Physicists still can't figure out if their claims came true.

Do you know why?

Spongy Iris wrote: ... and we can detect them early on with satellite and other observations.

We call all of that collectively "weather equipment."

Spongy Iris wrote: The sudden stratospheric warming usually takes a few weeks to influence our weather at the surface, or into the next month.

Nope. Wind is immediate. It is part of the weather.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
22-01-2021 03:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: And yet, how can we explain sudden stratospheric warming in January at the North Pole when there's no direct sunlight?

... by first defining it unambiguously to within a specific margin of error, and then demonstrating/showing it with a valid dataset that supports the specified margin of error.

Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy!

Spongy Iris wrote: If you take the position of IBdamned, it appears you have no choice but to deny its existence.

Only because you are illiterate.

I do not deny its existence; I do not know what "it" is.

Instead, I thoroughly question its existence and demand that it be unambiguously defined with a specified margin of error.

Hey, would I be correct in pointing out that you STILL have not unambiguously defined whatever the fúúkk it is you believe you are talking about, much less specified any margin of error for "it"? Are you simply trying to disguise your continued belief in Santa Claus? Is that why you don't dare define "it"?

Spongy Iris still believes in Santa Claus! Too funny.

Spongy Iris thinks he is insulting me by claiming that I deny the existence of Santa Claus! Too funny. I feel soooooo insulted.

Spongy Iris wrote: .. even though the phenomenon has been widely observed and can be predicted some days in advance.

It's a simple matter to predict the completely undefined, especially if you are the one who is claiming that it was "observed" (in the completely invalid passive voice).

Yes, children can be easily fooled into believing they actually observed Santa Claus.

Spongy Iris wrote: There was an interesting experiment I read about called Project West Ford, which apparently accomplished a task of putting 480,000,000 copper dipole antennas into orbit in the atmosphere from 1961 to 1963 to create an artificial ionosphere.

Please, think for yourself once or twice. The objective was to create an antenna, not an atmospheric layer. We're talking about a volume of 8.64 cubic meters, or a cube of 2.05 meters each in height, length and width. It really isn't possible to create an ionosphere with that amount of material.

They were just trying to create an antenna.

Secondly, you knew it was Wikipedia you were reading so you have only yourself to blame for letting any of the misinformation, the disinformation or any of the myriad of errors throughout Wikipedia lead you astray. Well, come to think of it, it does explain why you routinely spout off really stupid crap. It is totally your own fault.


.


The term sudden stratospheric warming refers to what is observed in the stratosphere:- a rapid warming (up to about 50 ­°C in just a couple of days), between 10 km and 50 km above the earth's surface.

The temperature of the stratosphere is unknown.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This is so high up that we don't feel the 'warming' ourselves. However, usually a few weeks later, we can start to see knock-on effects on the jet stream, which in turn effects our weather lower down (in the troposphere).

Nope. There is no sequence.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Every year in winter, strong westerly winds circle around the pole high up in the stratosphere. This is called the stratospheric polar vortex and it circulates around cold air high over the Arctic.

The term 'polar vortex' is a buzzword created by the Fake News media.
High pressure areas do not have a temperature. High pressure areas don't stick around very long. Low and high pressure areas move across the poles.
Spongy Iris wrote:
In some years, the winds in the polar vortex temporarily weaken, or even reverse to flow from east to west.

There is no 'polar vortex'. Winds can shift anytime.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The air then descends very rapidly in the polar vortex and the temperature in the stratosphere rises very rapidly, as much as 50­°C over only a few days; hence the term sudden stratospheric warming.

The temperature of the stratosphere is unknown.
Spongy Iris wrote:
As the air from high up in the stratosphere disperses, it can affect the shape of the jet stream as the air sinks from the stratosphere into the troposphere. It is this change in the jet stream that causes our weather to change.

Weather changes anyway....at the poles, anywhere under the jet stream, along the equator, everywhere.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The stratospheric sudden warming can sometimes cause the jet stream to 'snake' more.

What sudden warming? The temperature of the stratosphere is unknown.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Currently we can reliably predict individual sudden stratospheric warmings about a week in advance,

Predicting random numbers is meaningless.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and we can detect them early on with satellite

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and other observations.

None. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The sudden stratospheric warming usually takes a few weeks to influence our weather at the surface, or into the next month.

What warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere. Weather changes normally anyway.

You are making a LOT of shit up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 22-01-2021 03:25
23-01-2021 20:02
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
You heard it here first from The Parrot.

"High pressure areas do not have a temperature"

Do explain...


23-01-2021 20:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8629)
Spongy Iris wrote: You heard it here first from The Parrot.
"High pressure areas do not have a temperature"
Do explain...

What he meant was clear ... to anyone literate.

Knowing the pressure of an area does not tell you its temperature. You cannot say that a particular area has pressure P therefore it has temperature T. High-pressure areas do not have any particular determined temperature.

I feel sorry that you need this spelled out to you.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2021 04:20
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
Satellites carry microwave instruments that measure how much heat is given off by oxygen molecules, from which scientists can work out the air temperature.




24-01-2021 05:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8629)
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites carry microwave instruments that measure how much heat is given off by oxygen molecules, from which scientists can work out the air temperature.

Ummm, ... no.

You never called "BULLSHIT!" when you were ordered to regurgitate this, right?

Ask me how I know.



.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2021 05:41
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites carry microwave instruments that measure how much heat is given off by oxygen molecules, from which scientists can work out the air temperature.

Ummm, ... no.

You never called "BULLSHIT!" when you were ordered to regurgitate this, right?

Ask me how I know.



.


Ok, how do you know?


24-01-2021 05:55
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2020)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites carry microwave instruments that measure how much heat is given off by oxygen molecules, from which scientists can work out the air temperature.

Ummm, ... no.

You never called "BULLSHIT!" when you were ordered to regurgitate this, right?

Ask me how I know.



.


Ok, how do you know?


Popcorn anyone? This is going to be fun!



Showing up with a gun at all is just weird and gross.--tmiddles
24-01-2021 06:05
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
Satellites carry instruments that measure the IR emissivity of the Earths surface and it is calibrated to a program that matchs ground readings.It is wildly unstable but a nice try
.Distance is an issue
.The different emissivity of the surface is an issue
.cloud cover is an issue
The way to solve these and other issues is to fill in the blanks with homogenised data then make a pretty red colour chart
24-01-2021 06:35
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
duncan61 wrote:
Satellites carry instruments that measure the IR emissivity of the Earths surface and it is calibrated to a program that matchs ground readings.It is wildly unstable but a nice try
.Distance is an issue
.The different emissivity of the surface is an issue
.cloud cover is an issue
The way to solve these and other issues is to fill in the blanks with homogenised data then make a pretty red colour chart


Satellites circle the Earth over the poles looking at part of the atmosphere up to 10km above our heads known as the troposphere.


24-01-2021 06:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8629)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites carry microwave instruments that measure how much heat is given off by oxygen molecules, from which scientists can work out the air temperature.

Ummm, ... no.

You never called "BULLSHIT!" when you were ordered to regurgitate this, right?

Ask me how I know.

Ok, how do you know?

I know because you have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter for which you are pretending to have expertise. Your assertion is so stupid that it doesn't pass any common sense test, yet you are asserting it like it's totally thettled thienth.

There are no "microwave instruments" that filter the oxygen molecules for measuring.

You are using the word "heat" in a way that makes no sense.

Scientists don't perform data analysis; analysts analyze data ... usually it's data analysts specifically.

You never asked to learn exactly how one would "work out" the "air temperature" because if you had, you would have discovered that no instrumentation can discern, and then filter out, light that is coming from sources other than from that which is supposedly being measured. Photons don't come with origin tags detailing from where they came.

Thanks for asking, now call "BULLSHIT!" next time.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2021 06:45
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites carry microwave instruments that measure how much heat is given off by oxygen molecules, from which scientists can work out the air temperature.

Ummm, ... no.

You never called "BULLSHIT!" when you were ordered to regurgitate this, right?

Ask me how I know.

Ok, how do you know?

I know because you have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter for which you are pretending to have expertise. Your assertion is so stupid that it doesn't pass any common sense test, yet you are asserting it like it's totally thettled thienth.

There are no "microwave instruments" that filter the oxygen molecules for measuring.

You are using the word "heat" in a way that makes no sense.

Scientists don't perform data analysis; analysts analyze data ... usually it's data analysts specifically.

You never asked to learn exactly how one would "work out" the "air temperature" because if you had, you would have discovered that no instrumentation can discern, and then filter out, light that is coming from sources other than from that which is supposedly being measured. Photons don't come with origin tags detailing from where they came.

Thanks for asking, now call "BULLSHIT!" next time.

.


Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands. Since 1978 microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen, which is related to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere.


24-01-2021 06:59
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2020)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites carry microwave instruments that measure how much heat is given off by oxygen molecules, from which scientists can work out the air temperature.

Ummm, ... no.

You never called "BULLSHIT!" when you were ordered to regurgitate this, right?

Ask me how I know.

Ok, how do you know?

I know because you have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter for which you are pretending to have expertise. Your assertion is so stupid that it doesn't pass any common sense test, yet you are asserting it like it's totally thettled thienth.

There are no "microwave instruments" that filter the oxygen molecules for measuring.

You are using the word "heat" in a way that makes no sense.

Scientists don't perform data analysis; analysts analyze data ... usually it's data analysts specifically.

You never asked to learn exactly how one would "work out" the "air temperature" because if you had, you would have discovered that no instrumentation can discern, and then filter out, light that is coming from sources other than from that which is supposedly being measured. Photons don't come with origin tags detailing from where they came.

Thanks for asking, now call "BULLSHIT!" next time.

.


Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands. Since 1978 microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen, which is related to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere.


Did you REALLY think anyone was going to accept a Wiki copynpaste as an explanation?!


Showing up with a gun at all is just weird and gross.--tmiddles
24-01-2021 07:22
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(549)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites carry microwave instruments that measure how much heat is given off by oxygen molecules, from which scientists can work out the air temperature.

Ummm, ... no.

You never called "BULLSHIT!" when you were ordered to regurgitate this, right?

Ask me how I know.

Ok, how do you know?

I know because you have absolutely no understanding of the subject matter for which you are pretending to have expertise. Your assertion is so stupid that it doesn't pass any common sense test, yet you are asserting it like it's totally thettled thienth.

There are no "microwave instruments" that filter the oxygen molecules for measuring.

You are using the word "heat" in a way that makes no sense.

Scientists don't perform data analysis; analysts analyze data ... usually it's data analysts specifically.

You never asked to learn exactly how one would "work out" the "air temperature" because if you had, you would have discovered that no instrumentation can discern, and then filter out, light that is coming from sources other than from that which is supposedly being measured. Photons don't come with origin tags detailing from where they came.

Thanks for asking, now call "BULLSHIT!" next time.

.


Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands. Since 1978 microwave sounding units (MSUs) on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration polar orbiting satellites have measured the intensity of upwelling microwave radiation from atmospheric oxygen, which is related to the temperature of broad vertical layers of the atmosphere.


Did you REALLY think anyone was going to accept a Wiki copynpaste as an explanation?!


It is a bit more of a detailed explanation than the first, but basically says the same thing. It is to satisfy IB damned's nitpicking about how to use the word microwave radiation properly in a sentence about satellites.


24-01-2021 10:02
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.

I copied and pasted this from wiki
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.
Again.Make up what you want.The bottom will fall out the warming and the faith will diminish as it is just not getting warmer and time will prove it
24-01-2021 16:43
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
duncan61 wrote:
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.

I copied and pasted this from wiki
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.
Again.Make up what you want.The bottom will fall out the warming and the faith will diminish as it is just not getting warmer and time will prove it



And yet your fish finder uses a similar principle.
25-01-2021 00:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15058)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.

I copied and pasted this from wiki
Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.
Again.Make up what you want.The bottom will fall out the warming and the faith will diminish as it is just not getting warmer and time will prove it


And yet your fish finder uses a similar principle.


No, fish finders do not use cameras. They use sonar (sound waves), something that is completely useless in a satellite.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-01-2021 06:41
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
Modern fish finders display temperature but it is the temperature of the water the transducer is in.It is not claiming to know the temperature of the sand at the bottom of the ocean anyhoo water has a lot of different properties to air in thermal transference
25-01-2021 07:19
James___
★★★★★
(4167)
duncan61 wrote:
Modern fish finders display temperature but it is the temperature of the water the transducer is in.It is not claiming to know the temperature of the sand at the bottom of the ocean anyhoo water has a lot of different properties to air in thermal transference



That's not what you posted previously. You mentioned how it showed the thermocline. And now you're saying it doesn't show that?
25-01-2021 11:00
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1018)
Its still down imaging sonar that detects the thermocline not a thermometer
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate 2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
It Has Started - Bad News for Bernie522-03-2019 04:54
Climate change putting entire North Atlantic ecosystem at risk, says oceans conference organizer118-03-2019 19:57
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast514-03-2019 03:47
IPCC and Climate Alarm - How It Started3517-02-2017 22:53
It's Going to Be the Warmest Christmas at the North Pole Ever628-12-2016 18:53
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact