2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific

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.

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?

Spongy Iris wrote:

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.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
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.

Spongy Iris wrote:

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.

James___ wrote:

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?

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

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?

Sonar can see the thermocline ( warmer bit of water) because it's density is a bit different because it's warmer. Water is not compressible, so the variation is sensible. It is not able to measure absolute temperature of the thermocline.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:

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?

Sonar can see the thermocline ( warmer bit of water) because it's density is a bit different because it's warmer. Water is not compressible, so the variation is sensible. It is not able to measure absolute temperature of the thermocline.

Yet the state of water changes with temperature. Basically it will resonate at a different frequency. The laws of physics applies the same to everything. Just as sound comes from a speaker, it can resonate with different frequencies.
And with sonar, quite possible that some units can detect variations in frequency. And when a sonar "pings" the water, there can be different returns. This is where it would be similar to what a satellite does.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The National Weather Service in Anchorage says a storm hasn't grown this strong in the Bering Sea since 2014.

Forecasted minimum central pressure of about 927 mb on 12/31/20.

For some perspective, a minimum pressure below 930 mb is about what you would expect from a scale-topping hurricane.

However this type of cyclone is almost entirely reliant on upper-level winds for development. Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream. Divergence, or winds fanning out and spreading apart, leaves less air in the upper atmosphere, forcing air from the surface to rush upward to fill the growing void. Stronger jet streams can result in stronger divergence, which can generate stronger low-pressure systems at the surface.

The west-to-east oriented jet stream has grown incredibly strong, packing winds stronger than 200 MPH at its greatest extent. Intense divergence powers the low-pressure system over the Aleutian Islands to an intensity rarely seen in this part of the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dennismersereau/2021/12/30/one-of-the-strongest-storms-in-years-will-brush-alaska-this-week/?sh=abef8291099f

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The National Weather Service in Anchorage says a storm hasn't grown this strong in the Bering Sea since 2014.

Forecasted minimum central pressure of about 927 mb on 12/31/20.

For some perspective, a minimum pressure below 930 mb is about what you would expect from a scale-topping hurricane.

However this type of cyclone is almost entirely reliant on upper-level winds for development. Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream. Divergence, or winds fanning out and spreading apart, leaves less air in the upper atmosphere, forcing air from the surface to rush upward to fill the growing void. Stronger jet streams can result in stronger divergence, which can generate stronger low-pressure systems at the surface.

The west-to-east oriented jet stream has grown incredibly strong, packing winds stronger than 200 MPH at its greatest extent. Intense divergence powers the low-pressure system over the Aleutian Islands to an intensity rarely seen in this part of the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dennismersereau/2021/12/30/one-of-the-strongest-storms-in-years-will-brush-alaska-this-week/?sh=abef8291099f

Yea so do you have a point, other than there is a storm

duncan61 wrote:
The date is 1989.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The National Weather Service in Anchorage says a storm hasn't grown this strong in the Bering Sea since 2014.

Forecasted minimum central pressure of about 927 mb on 12/31/20.

For some perspective, a minimum pressure below 930 mb is about what you would expect from a scale-topping hurricane.

However this type of cyclone is almost entirely reliant on upper-level winds for development. Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream. Divergence, or winds fanning out and spreading apart, leaves less air in the upper atmosphere, forcing air from the surface to rush upward to fill the growing void. Stronger jet streams can result in stronger divergence, which can generate stronger low-pressure systems at the surface.

The west-to-east oriented jet stream has grown incredibly strong, packing winds stronger than 200 MPH at its greatest extent. Intense divergence powers the low-pressure system over the Aleutian Islands to an intensity rarely seen in this part of the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dennismersereau/2021/12/30/one-of-the-strongest-storms-in-years-will-brush-alaska-this-week/?sh=abef8291099f

Yea so do you have a point, other than there is a storm

Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream.



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 they call the "polar vortex."

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

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???

I don't think so. So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming? And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

HarveyH55 wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
The date is 1989.

That was the last year that NASA tried to sell that idea. They either figured out it was total BS, or there wasn't enough gullible people to buy it.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The National Weather Service in Anchorage says a storm hasn't grown this strong in the Bering Sea since 2014.

Forecasted minimum central pressure of about 927 mb on 12/31/20.

For some perspective, a minimum pressure below 930 mb is about what you would expect from a scale-topping hurricane.

However this type of cyclone is almost entirely reliant on upper-level winds for development. Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream. Divergence, or winds fanning out and spreading apart, leaves less air in the upper atmosphere, forcing air from the surface to rush upward to fill the growing void. Stronger jet streams can result in stronger divergence, which can generate stronger low-pressure systems at the surface.

The west-to-east oriented jet stream has grown incredibly strong, packing winds stronger than 200 MPH at its greatest extent. Intense divergence powers the low-pressure system over the Aleutian Islands to an intensity rarely seen in this part of the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dennismersereau/2021/12/30/one-of-the-strongest-storms-in-years-will-brush-alaska-this-week/?sh=abef8291099f

Yea so do you have a point, other than there is a storm

Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream.



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 they call the "polar vortex."

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

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???

I don't think so. So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming? And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

Again there is a storm, are you claiming the end of the World because the wind is blowing?

Sheesh

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The National Weather Service in Anchorage says a storm hasn't grown this strong in the Bering Sea since 2014.

Forecasted minimum central pressure of about 927 mb on 12/31/20.

For some perspective, a minimum pressure below 930 mb is about what you would expect from a scale-topping hurricane.

However this type of cyclone is almost entirely reliant on upper-level winds for development. Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream. Divergence, or winds fanning out and spreading apart, leaves less air in the upper atmosphere, forcing air from the surface to rush upward to fill the growing void. Stronger jet streams can result in stronger divergence, which can generate stronger low-pressure systems at the surface.

The west-to-east oriented jet stream has grown incredibly strong, packing winds stronger than 200 MPH at its greatest extent. Intense divergence powers the low-pressure system over the Aleutian Islands to an intensity rarely seen in this part of the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dennismersereau/2021/12/30/one-of-the-strongest-storms-in-years-will-brush-alaska-this-week/?sh=abef8291099f

Yea so do you have a point, other than there is a storm

Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream.



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 they call the "polar vortex."

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

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???

I don't think so. So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming? And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

Again there is a storm, are you claiming the end of the World because the wind is blowing?

Sheesh

Dude I told you my point and your response has nothing to do with my point. It appears you can't read.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The National Weather Service in Anchorage says a storm hasn't grown this strong in the Bering Sea since 2014.

Forecasted minimum central pressure of about 927 mb on 12/31/20.

For some perspective, a minimum pressure below 930 mb is about what you would expect from a scale-topping hurricane.

However this type of cyclone is almost entirely reliant on upper-level winds for development. Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream. Divergence, or winds fanning out and spreading apart, leaves less air in the upper atmosphere, forcing air from the surface to rush upward to fill the growing void. Stronger jet streams can result in stronger divergence, which can generate stronger low-pressure systems at the surface.

The west-to-east oriented jet stream has grown incredibly strong, packing winds stronger than 200 MPH at its greatest extent. Intense divergence powers the low-pressure system over the Aleutian Islands to an intensity rarely seen in this part of the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dennismersereau/2021/12/30/one-of-the-strongest-storms-in-years-will-brush-alaska-this-week/?sh=abef8291099f

Yea so do you have a point, other than there is a storm

Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream.



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 they call the "polar vortex."

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

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???

I don't think so. So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming? And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

Again there is a storm, are you claiming the end of the World because the wind is blowing?

Sheesh

Dude I told you my point and your response has nothing to do with my point. It appears you can't read.

You said a lot that added up to no cohesive point. Try again in one sentence and just say what you mean, and this response has everything to do with what you are not saying

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The National Weather Service in Anchorage says a storm hasn't grown this strong in the Bering Sea since 2014.

Forecasted minimum central pressure of about 927 mb on 12/31/20.

For some perspective, a minimum pressure below 930 mb is about what you would expect from a scale-topping hurricane.

However this type of cyclone is almost entirely reliant on upper-level winds for development. Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream. Divergence, or winds fanning out and spreading apart, leaves less air in the upper atmosphere, forcing air from the surface to rush upward to fill the growing void. Stronger jet streams can result in stronger divergence, which can generate stronger low-pressure systems at the surface.

The west-to-east oriented jet stream has grown incredibly strong, packing winds stronger than 200 MPH at its greatest extent. Intense divergence powers the low-pressure system over the Aleutian Islands to an intensity rarely seen in this part of the world.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dennismersereau/2021/12/30/one-of-the-strongest-storms-in-years-will-brush-alaska-this-week/?sh=abef8291099f

Yea so do you have a point, other than there is a storm

Strong winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere converge and diverge with the twists and turns of the jet stream.



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 they call the "polar vortex."

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

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???

I don't think so. So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming? And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

Again there is a storm, are you claiming the end of the World because the wind is blowing?

Sheesh

Dude I told you my point and your response has nothing to do with my point. It appears you can't read.

You said a lot that added up to no cohesive point. Try again in one sentence and just say what you mean, and this response has everything to do with what you are not saying

The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming? And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

There is no sudden warming so your point is pointless. See in order for you to make sense, I have to agree with you and I do not. You are a lost child screaming that the sky is falling.

LOL no one even talks about ozone holes anymore because they closed

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

There is no sudden warming so your point is pointless. See in order for you to make sense, I have to agree with you and I do not. You are a lost child screaming that the sky is falling.

LOL no one even talks about ozone holes anymore because they closed

They say it happens in about 1 week. The word "sudden" is relative.

Your insults are pointless. You sound like a teenage dirtbag.

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

There is no sudden warming so your point is pointless. See in order for you to make sense, I have to agree with you and I do not. You are a lost child screaming that the sky is falling.

LOL no one even talks about ozone holes anymore because they closed

They say it happens in about 1 week. The word "sudden" is relative.

Your insults are pointless. You sound like a teenage dirtbag.

Who are they?

And what are they saying happens in a week?

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Swan wrote:
LOL no one even talks about ozone holes anymore because they closed

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:

There is no sudden warming so your point is pointless. See in order for you to make sense, I have to agree with you and I do not. You are a lost child screaming that the sky is falling.

LOL no one even talks about ozone holes anymore because they closed

They say it happens in about 1 week. The word "sudden" is relative.

Your insults are pointless. You sound like a teenage dirtbag.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Swan wrote:
Who are they?

And what are they saying happens in a week?

Links have already been shared from UK Met and NASA several times. Were talking about "sudden stratospheric warming." Did you forget?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

You don't believe Satellites can infer temperature? Apparently not... Well I do.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

You don't believe Satellites can infer temperature? Apparently not... Well I do.

Then you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
LOL no one even talks about ozone holes anymore because they closed

Nope. Ozone holes still form at each pole in the winter. They are still about the same size.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

You don't believe Satellites can infer temperature? Apparently not... Well I do.

Then you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann established laws about Satellites???

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
LOL no one even talks about ozone holes anymore because they closed

Nope. Ozone holes still form at each pole in the winter. They are still about the same size.

Wrong again the ozone hole issue is greatly reduced since the banning of chlorofluorocarbons

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

You don't believe Satellites can infer temperature? Apparently not... Well I do.

Then you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann established laws about Satellites???

Evasion. Trolling.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

You don't believe Satellites can infer temperature? Apparently not... Well I do.

Then you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann established laws about Satellites???

Evasion. Trolling.

Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.

If you know the radiance, can't you use the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate temperature?

r = C*e*t^4 where r is radiance in watts per square area, C is a natural constant (which converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity a measured constant describing how well a surface radiates, and 't' is temperature in Kelvin.

If you know r, and C and e are constants, you can solve for T

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

You don't believe Satellites can infer temperature? Apparently not... Well I do.

Then you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann established laws about Satellites???

Evasion. Trolling.

Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.

If you know the radiance, can't you use the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate temperature?

r = C*e*t^4 where r is radiance in watts per square area, C is a natural constant (which converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity a measured constant describing how well a surface radiates, and 't' is temperature in Kelvin.

If you know r, and C and e are constants, you can solve for T

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

You don't believe Satellites can infer temperature? Apparently not... Well I do.

Then you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann established laws about Satellites???

Evasion. Trolling.

Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.

If you know the radiance, can't you use the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate temperature?

r = C*e*t^4 where r is radiance in watts per square area, C is a natural constant (which converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity a measured constant describing how well a surface radiates, and 't' is temperature in Kelvin.

If you know r, and C and e are constants, you can solve for T

There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. Therefore, 'e' is unknown.

Also, you don't know what amount of light is emitted vs reflected or refracted. Therefore 'r' is unknown.

Someday you should have IBD describe the difference between dependent and independent variables in equations.

Into the Night wrote:Someday you should have IBD describe the difference between dependent and independent variables in equations.

Spongy Iris wrote:If you know the radiance, can't you use the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate temperature?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The point is the observations gathered lead to these 2 questions.

All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. In a nutshell, what you observe is not what anyone else observes.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what caused the sudden stratospheric warming?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And is it just a coincidence the warming happened the same time of ozone build up?

What buildup?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Most other trolls here will say we don't know that sudden stratospheric warming actually happens, and satellite information is bullshit.

Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Do you want to try to discuss the questions with me, or make snide comments about the end of the world, or just not reply?

Cliche fallacy.

You don't believe Satellites can infer temperature? Apparently not... Well I do.

Then you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann established laws about Satellites???

Evasion. Trolling.

Satellites measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.

If you know the radiance, can't you use the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate temperature?

r = C*e*t^4 where r is radiance in watts per square area, C is a natural constant (which converts the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity a measured constant describing how well a surface radiates, and 't' is temperature in Kelvin.

If you know r, and C and e are constants, you can solve for T

There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. Therefore, 'e' is unknown.

Also, you don't know what amount of light is emitted vs reflected or refracted. Therefore 'r' is unknown.

Someday you should have IBD describe the difference between dependent and independent variables in equations.

It was already said the various wavelength bands are measured. That must mean reflected, refracted, or emitted light. Thus it looks like 'r' is known.

Spongy Iris wrote:
E is a constant which I read is input into the formula as 1.

Spongy Iris wrote:It was already said the various wavelength bands are measured.

Spongy Iris wrote: E is a constant which I read is input into the formula as 1.

Into the Night wrote:

Reflection, refaction, and emission are not frequencies. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency component. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Spongy Iris wrote:
E is a constant which I read is input into the formula as 1.

WRONG. Earth is not an ideal black body. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.