2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific

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.

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

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...

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

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

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

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.

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!

James___ wrote:Want to squeeze my lemon?
Hope you like lemonade!!!

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:Want to squeeze my lemon?
Hope you like lemonade!!!

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




.

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...

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

James___ wrote:
Thermodynamics required that shift to be caused by something.

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

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

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.

James___ wrote:
To give you guys a basic clue or understanding, if someone with a PhD had the answer, then we'd know it.

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

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.

James___ wrote:
That can create variations in stratospheric warming because of thermal radiation variance.

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

James___ wrote:
For ITN, radiance through the tropopause is a transfer of heat.

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

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.

James___ wrote:
p.s., I know you ITN, you'll try to nitpik the science.

James___ wrote:
Just staying one step ahead of you Bro.

James___ wrote:
Made changes to keep context straight.

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?

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.

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.


.

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...

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you not consider the ISS to be orbiting in our atmosphere?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Where do you draw the line between our atmosphere and space?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The stratospheric sudden warming can sometimes cause the jet stream to 'snake' more.

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

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
and other observations.

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

Spongy Iris wrote: You heard it here first from The Parrot.
"High pressure areas do not have a temperature"
Do explain...

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.

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.



.

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?

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

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?

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.

.

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.

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?!

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

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.

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