2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific

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

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.

.

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

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.

.

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.

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

Spongy Iris wrote: Polar vortex missed us.

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

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.

.

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.


.

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
When there is more ozone over the Arctic, the Arctic gets warmer,

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

James___ wrote:
if gfm praises you for understanding something like that, any idea why?

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.

Every now and then I get something right.

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

James___ wrote:
like 3:16.

James___ wrote:
What do those numbers mean?

James___ wrote:
is that a fraction?

James___ wrote:
Just random numbers.

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

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

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?

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???

Spongy Iris wrote: Does anybody have another reason to suggest as the cause of sudden stratospheric warming?

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

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.

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

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???

James___ wrote: ... a byproduct of ozone forming is it blocks UV-B.

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

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.

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.

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



..

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

James___ wrote:
UV radiation is a form of heat

James___ wrote:
just as emissions from atmospheric gasses are heat.

James___ wrote:
In the middle of the stratosphere where it's 0º C. or 32º F., you might get cooked.

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

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.

James___ wrote:
You sure seem to be fascinated with corn whiskey. You must like the stuff the way you keep talking about it.

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.