Remember me
▼ Content

2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific



Page 3 of 5<12345>
25-01-2021 12:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.

No. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of oxygen is unknown.
No satellite can measure an absolute temperature.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-01-2021 12:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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?

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.

YOU have to show your work. IBD doesn't have to show anything. You cannot shift the burden of proof this way.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-01-2021 12:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.


They cannot measure the absolute temperature of the atmosphere or of the surface.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-01-2021 12:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.

Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency component in that law, which is
r = C * e * t^4. No frequency in the equation.
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.

Microwaves do not measure temperature. BS statement.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-01-2021 12:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.

Microwaves do not measure temperature. False authority fallacy. You are listening to BS.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-01-2021 12:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-01-2021 14:32
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
I used to do a lot of trolling lures for trout and in the warmer months it is important to use lures that dive down below the thermocline as they ae reluctant to be in the warmer water for long.I have dove down in freshwater dams and gone through it before and it is a big change in temperature.It obviously varies but is around 10 foot.High quality sounders can pick up the density difference if set very fine in calm water.I have only ever had a basic hummingbird unit on my dinghys but have seen the good units in action
25-01-2021 15:42
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
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.
25-01-2021 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.

A satellite cannot use sonar.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
29-01-2021 04:02
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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
29-01-2021 04:58
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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?


29-01-2021 09:30
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
The date is 1989.
29-01-2021 10:04
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
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.
29-01-2021 15:59
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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
29-01-2021 17:31
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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.


The cold air from the Arctic snakes down south almost every year. They call it the polar vortex effect.


29-01-2021 17:40
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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.


29-01-2021 18:32
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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
Edited on 29-01-2021 18:37
29-01-2021 19:18
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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?


29-01-2021 19:53
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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?


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
29-01-2021 20:06
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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.


29-01-2021 20:55
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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?
29-01-2021 20:59
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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?


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


29-01-2021 23:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
29-01-2021 23:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-01-2021 00:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.


Void reference fallacy. Symantics fallacy. Paradox. Insult fallacies.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-01-2021 00:01
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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.


30-01-2021 00:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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?


False authority fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the stratosphere.
Did you know that UK Met just copies the random numbers from NASA?


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-01-2021 00:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-01-2021 00:15
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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???



Edited on 30-01-2021 00:33
30-01-2021 00:15
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
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
30-01-2021 04:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
30-01-2021 04:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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


CFCs do not affect ozone. No, the hole is still there.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 30-01-2021 04:02
30-01-2021 07:15
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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


30-01-2021 12:03
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
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



This might be where we get into sonar being able to detect temperature changes in water. It might be the feedback or signal being reflected back. With a satellite, it's more sensitive than a sonar which sends out sound waves.
So for what you suggested, how would the change in a given field alter how it reflects different wavelengths of energy being transmitted in that direction. This is where a processor being able to consider how many functions per second matters. If a processor can only perform 100,000 calculations per second then that is the limit of oscillations or waves of energy that it can process.
Faster processors means that more waves can be processed as a function of a dish/satellite absorbing energy. This is probably why for a decent satellite that computer chips were a necessary invention. It is astonishing in a way how many calculations per second that a chip can process these days.
The basic smartphone is far more powerful than what allowed for a flight to the Moon. It's like in 1969 they were cavemen living in the Dark Ages.
30-01-2021 15:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
31-01-2021 01:17
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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.

E is a constant which I read is input into the formula as 1.


31-01-2021 02:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9174)
Into the Night wrote:Someday you should have IBD describe the difference between dependent and independent variables in equations.

I was just thinking that as I was reading the thread but you were thinking it first.

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

First of all, nobody knows the earth's emissivity which one would need to calculate anything about the earth using Stefan-Boltzmann.

Second, the Stefan-Botlzmann equation is solved for Radiance (as you wrote it) because it computes Radiance given a Temperature value, i.e. a certain Temperature (independent variable) will produce a certain Radiance (dependent variable).

Can other things on the earth produce radiance? Will that not add to the earth's total radiance? The earth's Temperature value is only one component. If you were to somehow measure all of the earth's Radiance would you be able to separate the Radiance that came from Temperature vs. Radiance from other sources?

The answer is "No."

... but you would be doing it backwards anyway if you were to approach it in that manner. The earth's temperature comes from the sun's energy. If the earth's temperature is what you want to compute then you want to start with the amount of solar energy that is incident to the earth. At that point you would need to come up with a value for earth's emissivity in order to use the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship to reverse compute a Temperature value ... but that is how you would go about doing that ... not by using earth's Radiance but by using the sun's.

Let me summarize for you what you would need to calculate:

1. The sun's Radiance (you would have to define a "surface" because the sun does not have one)
2. You compute the corresponding Radiance (through good old fashion geometry) incident with the earth and arrive at a Power value.
3. You apply the Inverse Square Law to calculate how much power arrives at the earth.
4. You multiply by the earth's Emissivity constant (strictly between 0.0 and 1.0) to compute how much energy is actually absorbed by the earth.
5. THEN you backward-chain that value through the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship to get the earth's theoretical temperature value, with a margin of error comprised of your measurement errors and the completely unknown value of the earth's Emissivity.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.



.


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
31-01-2021 04:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15541)
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.

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.


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
31-01-2021 06:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9174)
Spongy Iris wrote:It was already said the various wavelength bands are measured.

If wavelengths/frequencies are involved, you are not using Stefan-Boltzmann.

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

Nope. Emissivity is often set equal to 1.0 as the theoretical maximum for discussion purposes only. The moment you put an actual body of matter into the equation, the body's actual emissivity must be used ... and no body of matter has an emissivity of 1.0, just as no matter is ever at absolute zero temperature, i.e. the theoretical limit.

When it comes to the earth, humanity has never had the ability to measure/compute the earth's emissivity to any usable accuracy.


.


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
31-01-2021 16:53
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
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.



What's being overlooked is what if the Earth is absorbing energy? It could be gaining mass. We know the solar constant is about 1,366 w/m^2. Is that in the magnetosphere?
What would actually need to be done is measure the solar constant at different elevations. Then have those sensors face the Earth itself and measure what is being emitted from the Earth. I don't think that has been done yet.
Page 3 of 5<12345>





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