Remember me
▼ Content

2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific



Page 1 of 5123>>>
2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific14-01-2021 21:18
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
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


14-01-2021 21:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
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


You are making a strong case for global cooling.

.


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
14-01-2021 21:54
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
IBdaMann 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


You are making a strong case for global cooling.

.

It's not fair to confuse him like that...
14-01-2021 22:32
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
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


On an interesting side note, that's where the ozone went to at about that time. I think this is another result of that storm. It's an interactive weather map for I think the next 7 days.

https://weatherstreet.com/models/gfs-sfc-temperature-forecast.php
14-01-2021 22:48
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
IBdaMann 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


You are making a strong case for global cooling.

.


This is just 1 area of the globe. Not a large enough sample to make a case for global cooling.

We're getting record heat just east of SF Bay. Polar vortex missed us. It's gonna be 70 F today Jan 14! Even Harvey should be jealous.



Edited on 14-01-2021 22:49
15-01-2021 00:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: You are making a strong case for global cooling.


This is just 1 area of the globe. Not a large enough sample to make a case for global cooling.


Survey to the rest of the board: If I had said that Spngy Iris had made a strong case for Global Warming, do you think he would have rejected the notion on the grounds that the poles are not enough "sample" to make the case for Global Warming?

Spongy Iris wrote:We're getting record heat just east of SF Bay.

This is a sure sign of Global Warming, right? The evidence is clear, right? The prophesies have come true, right? You'd have to be a denier to not see it, right?

Spongy Iris wrote: Polar vortex missed us.

Which looks exactly the same as there not being any polar vortex in the first place.

Spongy Iris wrote: It's gonna be 70 F today Jan 14! Even Harvey should be jealous.

Envious. Harvey should be envious, not jealous. Jealousy pertains to lovers/boyfriends/girlfriends/partners/significant others.


.


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
15-01-2021 01:37
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
IBdaMann 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


You are making a strong case for global cooling.

.


Global warming, cooling, violence, economic disaster... It's all covered under Climate Change. The political climate in DC, is going to change in about a week, with global devastation.

Who cares about a winter storm, far up north? Polar bears, penguins, Norwegian? They get over it, usually do.
15-01-2021 01:53
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: You are making a strong case for global cooling.


This is just 1 area of the globe. Not a large enough sample to make a case for global cooling.


Survey to the rest of the board: If I had said that Spngy Iris had made a strong case for Global Warming, do you think he would have rejected the notion on the grounds that the poles are not enough "sample" to make the case for Global Warming?

Spongy Iris wrote:We're getting record heat just east of SF Bay.

This is a sure sign of Global Warming, right? The evidence is clear, right? The prophesies have come true, right? You'd have to be a denier to not see it, right?

Spongy Iris wrote: Polar vortex missed us.

Which looks exactly the same as there not being any polar vortex in the first place.

Spongy Iris wrote: It's gonna be 70 F today Jan 14! Even Harvey should be jealous.

Envious. Harvey should be envious, not jealous. Jealousy pertains to lovers/boyfriends/girlfriends/partners/significant others.


.


I was pointing out when the polar vortex missed us, it's already starting to feel like Spring in January

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

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/wind/sudden-stratospheric-warming


15-01-2021 02:02
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/learn-about/weather/types-of-weather/wind/sudden-stratospheric-warming
Interesting read sponge bob.I am going to study it in more detail when I get back from work.The old weather has a lot of variables
15-01-2021 02:07
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
James___ 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


On an interesting side note, that's where the ozone went to at about that time. I think this is another result of that storm. It's an interactive weather map for I think the next 7 days.

https://weatherstreet.com/models/gfs-sfc-temperature-forecast.php


This image from NASA appears to confirm



When there is more ozone over the Arctic, the Arctic gets warmer, and pushes the jet stream (polar vortex) lower.


15-01-2021 04:48
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2120)
Spongy Iris wrote:
When there is more ozone over the Arctic, the Arctic gets warmer,


Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
15-01-2021 15:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
When there is more ozone over the Arctic, the Arctic gets warmer,


Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.


Thank you. You made my day.


.


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
15-01-2021 16:40
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
When there is more ozone over the Arctic, the Arctic gets warmer,


Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

BINGO!

Good post.
15-01-2021 18:06
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
When there is more ozone over the Arctic, the Arctic gets warmer,


Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.



You are both right. The upper atmosphere (stratosphere, ozone layer) is warmer. The ozone layers absorbs UV radiation quite well. This in turns cools the troposphere.
If you noticed, when the thicker layer of stratospheric ozone moved to the Bering Strait that it created a low pressure in the troposphere?
15-01-2021 20:33
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

you might be right
15-01-2021 21:30
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
duncan61 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

you might be right


Fixed the formatting for you.


Yes, GasGuzzler is right.
15-01-2021 21:38
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

you might be right


Fixed the formatting for you.


Yes, GasGuzzler is right.



Umm, actually GasGuzzler said that Spongy was right. You and Duncan are merely supporting his opinion of Spongy being right.

Edited on 15-01-2021 21:39
15-01-2021 22:23
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2120)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

you might be right


Fixed the formatting for you.


Yes, GasGuzzler is right.



Umm, actually GasGuzzler said that Spongy was right. You and Duncan are merely supporting his opinion of Spongy being right.


I did not say spongy was right. I asked if a claim was being made that sunlight makes things warmer.

I also added that it did sound quite plausible.

GFM came out and said "Gasguzzler is right", and before the day is over that quote may be in my signature line.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
15-01-2021 23:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

you might be right


Fixed the formatting for you.


Yes, GasGuzzler is right.



Umm, actually GasGuzzler said that Spongy was right. You and Duncan are merely supporting his opinion of Spongy being right.

Spongy was incomplete with his thought (but seemed to me to be making an erroneous implication about ozone from his thought). GasGuzzler "filled in the void" a bit, so to speak...
Edited on 15-01-2021 23:11
15-01-2021 23:10
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

you might be right


Fixed the formatting for you.


Yes, GasGuzzler is right.



Umm, actually GasGuzzler said that Spongy was right. You and Duncan are merely supporting his opinion of Spongy being right.


I did not say spongy was right. I asked if a claim was being made that sunlight makes things warmer.

I also added that it did sound quite plausible.

GFM came out and said "Gasguzzler is right", and before the day is over that quote may be in my signature line.



Do you really think it's plausible that the Sun causes the days to be warmer than the nights? That it actually can warm something? That doesn't sound right to me but if gfm praises you for understanding something like that, any idea why?
15-01-2021 23:54
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2120)
James___ wrote:
if gfm praises you for understanding something like that, any idea why?


GFM knows his shit...all of it. Every now and then I get something right.



ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
Edited on 15-01-2021 23:55
16-01-2021 00:15
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
if gfm praises you for understanding something like that, any idea why?


GFM knows his shit...all of it. Every now and then I get something right.




gfm told me that science is just a bunch of random numbers like 3:16. What do those numbers mean? is that a fraction? Just random numbers. And yes, 3:16 is a ratio or fraction. Doubt it has any other meaning, maybe just empty buzzwords and word salad. Right?


Every now and then I get something right.


When you eat like the Sami you get it right.
16-01-2021 01:01
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2107)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
if gfm praises you for understanding something like that, any idea why?


GFM knows his shit...all of it. Every now and then I get something right.




gfm told me that science is just a bunch of random numbers

I have said no such thing.

James___ wrote:
like 3:16.

I assume that you are making another crack at my Christian faith here?


James___ wrote:
What do those numbers mean?

I assume that you are making a veiled reference to the John 3:16 Bible passage. Of course, this COULD just be another case of James babble... We'll see.

James___ wrote:
is that a fraction?

No. In Mathematics, 3:16 would be a ratio.

James___ wrote:
Just random numbers.

More likely just James babble...

James___ wrote:
And yes, 3:16 is a ratio or fraction.

No, 3:16 is a ratio. 3/16 is a fraction.

James___ wrote:
Doubt it has any other meaning, maybe just empty buzzwords and word salad. Right?

I think you're just James babbling again...
16-01-2021 01:15
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

you might be right


Fixed the formatting for you.


Yes, GasGuzzler is right.



Umm, actually GasGuzzler said that Spongy was right. You and Duncan are merely supporting his opinion of Spongy being right.


I did not say spongy was right. I asked if a claim was being made that sunlight makes things warmer.

I also added that it did sound quite plausible.

GFM came out and said "Gasguzzler is right", and before the day is over that quote may be in my signature line.



Do you really think it's plausible that the Sun causes the days to be warmer than the nights? That it actually can warm something? That doesn't sound right to me but if gfm praises you for understanding something like that, any idea why?


A super conductor needs to stay pretty cold I heard...


16-01-2021 01:18
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
3:16 is a fraction. If one gear rotates 3 times and another gear rotates 16 times, then the gear that rotated 3 times rotated a fraction of the number of times that the gear that rotated 16 times did.

And gfm, you don't sound like a Christian. Just nothing of what you post makes me think that. After all, you ridicule me for trying to discuss climate variations that were recorded in history. All you are is argumentative and nothing more.


And gfm, since Jesus is the Lion of Judah, that's a problem. Why? Because the lion is a symbol of Israel and not Christianity. Also, at no time did Jesus ever say force your opinion on someone. Just not in the Bible. Jesus also said do not involve yourselves in the affairs of state. Yet Christians very much do that.

1Peter 2:13-17

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.


When Trump lost the election, you should have accepted the results of the election. The voters were an institution, a body or group of people. The electors could be considered as governors because they govern.
Asked to wear a mask? It's a violation of your right to not wear one. The Bible says to wear it.
As for me, you ridicule me for trying to work with the system that's in place rather than trying to tear it down.

Edited on 16-01-2021 01:46
16-01-2021 01:40
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
gfm7175 wrote:
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Mmmm....I think ozone is destroyed by no sunlight, and can only be created when sunlight is present.

Would you be making the claim that sunlight makes things warmer? It does sound quite plausible.

you might be right


Fixed the formatting for you.


Yes, GasGuzzler is right.


Umm, actually GasGuzzler said that Spongy was right. You and Duncan are merely supporting his opinion of Spongy being right.

Spongy was incomplete with his thought (but seemed to me to be making an erroneous implication about ozone from his thought). GasGuzzler "filled in the void" a bit, so to speak...


The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.

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

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

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

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

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

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


16-01-2021 02:03
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


duncan61
Edited on 16-01-2021 02:05
16-01-2021 02:06
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
I have learned to put quotes in boxes.How cool is that
16-01-2021 05:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Spongy Iris wrote: Does anybody have another reason to suggest as the cause of sudden stratospheric warming?

Does anyone have any sort of rational basis for believing that there is "sudden stratospheric warming"? Does anyone have a formal, unambiguous definition of "sudden stratospheric warming"?

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

Why is that puzzling to you? No sunlight, no ozone.

Spongy Iris wrote: 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.

Sure.

Spongy Iris wrote: ... has it really retained enough heat to warm the stratosphere by ~ 50 C in a couple days???

Has it really increased the stratosphere by ~50C? Show me, and I don't mean by presenting graphics that were made in somebody's mother's basement with the NASA logon on it.

.


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
16-01-2021 06:16
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Duncan, I gave this some thought and you asked some good questions. With some of what you asked, I can suggest a couple different possibilities but no definitive answer.
There is "air" circulation in the stratosphere. While it's temperature can get as warm as 0º C., you might get radiation burns. Not the same heat as on the ground.
When a column of ozone moved, the cold followed it. That doesn't agree with thermodynamics. With that, the jet stream might've influenced it. With the lower stratosphere staying warm, I wonder if the aurora borealis might help to explain it.
Me and Spongy talked about this some. They say that the solar particles that create it are charged to 8,000 volts by the magnetosphere. Basically there's a break in the Earth's magnetic lines that create the magnetosphere.
What you're asking about shows how complex our atmosphere is.
Attached image:


Edited on 16-01-2021 06:22
16-01-2021 10:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
James___ wrote: ... a byproduct of ozone forming is it blocks UV-B.

It's UV-C that gets blocked almost entirely.

This is why sunblock is designed to protect against UV-A and UV-B






..


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
16-01-2021 15:45
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Duncan, I gave this some thought and you asked some good questions. With some of what you asked, I can suggest a couple different possibilities but no definitive answer.
There is "air" circulation in the stratosphere. While it's temperature can get as warm as 0º C., you might get radiation burns. Not the same heat as on the ground.
When a column of ozone moved, the cold followed it. That doesn't agree with thermodynamics. With that, the jet stream might've influenced it. With the lower stratosphere staying warm, I wonder if the aurora borealis might help to explain it.
Me and Spongy talked about this some. They say that the solar particles that create it are charged to 8,000 volts by the magnetosphere. Basically there's a break in the Earth's magnetic lines that create the magnetosphere.
What you're asking about shows how complex our atmosphere is.[/quote]

There is "air" circulation in the stratosphere. While it's temperature can get as warm as 0º C., you might get radiation burns. Not the same heat as on the ground.


How many different kinds of 'heat' are there. I was given the impression that there can be only one. Heat, is the movement of thermal energy. Pretty simple... Is it like only man-made CO2, causes global warming, and naturally occurring CO2 is completely harmless. Or there is any difference between the corn whiskey in the jug, and the ethanol added to the fuel I pump into my SUV.
16-01-2021 16:19
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Duncan, I gave this some thought and you asked some good questions. With some of what you asked, I can suggest a couple different possibilities but no definitive answer.
There is "air" circulation in the stratosphere. While it's temperature can get as warm as 0º C., you might get radiation burns. Not the same heat as on the ground.
When a column of ozone moved, the cold followed it. That doesn't agree with thermodynamics. With that, the jet stream might've influenced it. With the lower stratosphere staying warm, I wonder if the aurora borealis might help to explain it.
Me and Spongy talked about this some. They say that the solar particles that create it are charged to 8,000 volts by the magnetosphere. Basically there's a break in the Earth's magnetic lines that create the magnetosphere.
What you're asking about shows how complex our atmosphere is.


There is "air" circulation in the stratosphere. While it's temperature can get as warm as 0º C., you might get radiation burns. Not the same heat as on the ground.


How many different kinds of 'heat' are there. I was given the impression that there can be only one. Heat, is the movement of thermal energy. Pretty simple... Is it like only man-made CO2, causes global warming, and naturally occurring CO2 is completely harmless. Or there is any difference between the corn whiskey in the jug, and the ethanol added to the fuel I pump into my SUV.[/quote]


UV radiation is a form of heat just as emissions from atmospheric gasses are heat. In the middle of the stratosphere where it's 0º C. or 32º F., you might get cooked. In the troposphere, a lot of the harmful solar radiation is blocked by the ozone layer.
To give you an idea, if there were no ozone layer, all flora (plant life) on Earth wouldn't be able to exist.
You sure seem to be fascinated with corn whiskey. You must like the stuff the way you keep talking about it.
16-01-2021 16:23
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: ... a byproduct of ozone forming is it blocks UV-B.

It's UV-C that gets blocked almost entirely.

This is why sunblock is designed to protect against UV-A and UV-B



..


You gave me credit for someone else's quote.

I know the ozone layer blocks most UV radiation. Kind of why Harvey thought I had to be drunk to say the heat above the ozone layer is different than the heat below it.


Ozone absorbs more than 99 percent of UV-C rays -- the most dangerous portion of the spectrum. Ozone absorbs about 90 percent of the UV-B rays -- but the 10 percent that make it through are a big factor in inducing sunburns and triggering skin cancer. Ozone absorbs about 50 percent of the UV-A rays.
https://sciencing.com/percent-uv-ozone-absorb-20509.html
16-01-2021 17:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is "air" circulation in the stratosphere. While it's temperature can get as warm as 0º C., you might get radiation burns. Not the same heat as on the ground.


How many different kinds of 'heat' are there.

As many as there need to be. When one must prove Global Warming then small inconveniences such as insufficient "heats" can never be allowed to stand in the way.

HarveyH55 wrote: I was given the impression that there can be only one. Heat, is the movement of thermal energy. Pretty simple...

Well, when you are correct, you are correct. However, you are clearly an obstructionist who will not accept the thettled thienth.

HarveyH55 wrote: Is it like only man-made CO2, causes global warming, and naturally occurring CO2 is completely harmless.

Exactly. Although "human activity" is not unambiguously defined, CO2 inherently knows its source, its roots, its origins, its beginnings ... and has little tags stamped onto it declaring it to be either completely harmless, natural CO2 or planet-destroying "human-made" CO2. The two are night and day when juxtaposed and each carries a little logo depicting either "Family Friendly" or "Hazardous Material."

.
Attached image:

16-01-2021 19:59
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The pictures from NASA show when there's more ozone over the north pole it coincides with sudden stratospheric warming which pushes the polar jet stream winds further south, which us folk in the Northern hemisphere call the "polar vortex," when we get hit with that wind chill.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Duncan, I gave this some thought and you asked some good questions. With some of what you asked, I can suggest a couple different possibilities but no definitive answer.
There is "air" circulation in the stratosphere. While it's temperature can get as warm as 0º C., you might get radiation burns. Not the same heat as on the ground.
When a column of ozone moved, the cold followed it. That doesn't agree with thermodynamics. With that, the jet stream might've influenced it. With the lower stratosphere staying warm, I wonder if the aurora borealis might help to explain it.
Me and Spongy talked about this some. They say that the solar particles that create it are charged to 8,000 volts by the magnetosphere. Basically there's a break in the Earth's magnetic lines that create the magnetosphere.
What you're asking about shows how complex our atmosphere is.


There is "air" circulation in the stratosphere. While it's temperature can get as warm as 0º C., you might get radiation burns. Not the same heat as on the ground.


How many different kinds of 'heat' are there. I was given the impression that there can be only one. Heat, is the movement of thermal energy. Pretty simple... Is it like only man-made CO2, causes global warming, and naturally occurring CO2 is completely harmless. Or there is any difference between the corn whiskey in the jug, and the ethanol added to the fuel I pump into my SUV.



UV radiation is a form of heat just as emissions from atmospheric gasses are heat. In the middle of the stratosphere where it's 0º C. or 32º F., you might get cooked. In the troposphere, a lot of the harmful solar radiation is blocked by the ozone layer.
To give you an idea, if there were no ozone layer, all flora (plant life) on Earth wouldn't be able to exist.
You sure seem to be fascinated with corn whiskey. You must like the stuff the way you keep talking about it.[/quote]

There is only one form of 'heat', that I've ever been aware of. Then again, I only had two years of college, and the global warming thing hadn't really taken off yet...

Thought corn whiskey was Kentucky's main export. My SUV drinks that stuff by the gallon every week. The add 10% here in Florida. You can pay more for ethanol-free gas, but think they are lying about that. I've never been very tolerant to any spirits. Just an occasional beer. Wine doesn't sit well either, but usually don't 'reject' as quickly, as liquor.
16-01-2021 20:45
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
HarveyH55 wrote:

There is only one form of 'heat', that I've ever been aware of. Then again, I only had two years of college, and the global warming thing hadn't really taken off yet...

Thought corn whiskey was Kentucky's main export. My SUV drinks that stuff by the gallon every week. The add 10% here in Florida. You can pay more for ethanol-free gas, but think they are lying about that. I've never been very tolerant to any spirits. Just an occasional beer. Wine doesn't sit well either, but usually don't 'reject' as quickly, as liquor.



Have been working on some real math problems and listening to some relaxing music while I do it. I'm just not sure what you're "on" about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXwOj8gPbOQ
I guess your rant got muffled out by the music.



@All, I think the server this forum is on might not be saving all commands. specifically the [/quote 2nd bracket left off intentionally.
p.s., Harvey, if you took the time to learn math, it might help you to relax, clear your head, etc.
Edited on 16-01-2021 21:03
16-01-2021 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15560)
James___ wrote:
UV radiation is a form of heat

Light is not heat.
James___ wrote:
just as emissions from atmospheric gasses are heat.

Light is not heat.
James___ wrote:
In the middle of the stratosphere where it's 0º C. or 32º F., you might get cooked.

Argument from randU fallacy.
James___ wrote:
In the troposphere, a lot of the harmful solar radiation is blocked by the ozone layer.

There is no ozone layer in the troposphere, and oxygen also blocks UV light, especially UV-C light.
James___ wrote:
To give you an idea, if there were no ozone layer, all flora (plant life) on Earth wouldn't be able to exist.

Actually, they would be just fine. Oxygen in the atmosphere blocks UV-C light. Plants can actually benefit from UV-B light exposure, which is what the ozone layer blocks most of. No UV-C light reaches the surface due to oxygen, not ozone.
James___ wrote:
You sure seem to be fascinated with corn whiskey. You must like the stuff the way you keep talking about it.

So?


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
16-01-2021 22:57
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
@Harvey, this is some of the math that I'm learning for wood working. If I want to build a custom wind turbine/ windmill then this will come in handy. This is because in some ways if the structure is like a train trestle https://images.app.goo.gl/eC37FAGSV72Ni8NK9 then trig can help to calculate how much stress it can handle. That's just another way of saying force or weight acting on something.
With the science experiment, it's more about testing a hypothesis based on theory. At the same time I can calculate orbital velocity and kinetic energy from that. It uses well known formulas and with wood working, I'll need to be able to do my own math.

Attached image:

17-01-2021 00:56
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3400)
James___ wrote:
@Harvey, this is some of the math that I'm learning for wood working. If I want to build a custom wind turbine/ windmill then this will come in handy. This is because in some ways if the structure is like a train trestle https://images.app.goo.gl/eC37FAGSV72Ni8NK9 then trig can help to calculate how much stress it can handle. That's just another way of saying force or weight acting on something.
With the science experiment, it's more about testing a hypothesis based on theory. At the same time I can calculate orbital velocity and kinetic energy from that. It uses well known formulas and with wood working, I'll need to be able to do my own math.


Yeah, good luck with that. I learned a lot of math, and quite a few other things in school, much of which I never really found much use. Fortunately, I learned a few things, that can be applied, when learn to us the tool, I've actually found a need for, and a classroom is no longer needed.
Page 1 of 5123>>>





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