Remember me
▼ Content

Storm Predictions



Page 1 of 212>
Storm Predictions05-01-2021 23:07
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
In the link, red is a good amount of ozone while blue represents a smaller amount. If you click through the pictures https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/NH.html, the low ozone area moving into the Arctic is supposed to cause storms in the Midwest and southeast as the polar vortex shifts as a result.

Just prior to the end of December and ongoing now through Jan. 5, 2021, there has been a surge in temperatures in the stratosphere above the Arctic Circle," AccuWeather's Lead Long-Range Meteorologist Paul Pastelok said.

The temperature surge in the layer of the atmosphere, which is located between 6 and 31 miles above the ground, could lead to a weakening of the polar vortex around 10-14 days later, he warned. When this storm near the North Pole that tends to keep Arctic air locked up weakens, it allows frigid air to escape and push southward toward the mid-latitudes such as the U.S.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/arctic-outbreaks-major-winter-storms-173400498.html

p.s., notice how they correlate temperature surge with less ozone?
Edited on 05-01-2021 23:12
06-01-2021 01:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
So?
06-01-2021 01:24
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3345)
Correlation, doesn't equate causation... Back in the 1970, we had an Ozone crisis, and a new ice age was coming soon, if we didn't act quickly. There were a couple of years of particularly bad winters, so it was an easy sell. People panic, governments banned all kinds of crazy stuff. Global Warming became trendy, and the ozone hole declared 'fixed'. The ozone hole remained over the antarctic, and continued to grow and shrink, every year. Almost as predictable, as polar ice melting, and reforming. The amount of change varies from year to year. Not every natural process needs to be reduced to a single element. It's a combination of many factors. Calculus doesn't allow for this. There must be only on correct solution to the problem. Experts tend to have a very narrow focus, and become blinded to the rest of the world. It's a very large, dynamic planet.
06-01-2021 02:28
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Correlation, doesn't equate causation... Back in the 1970, we had an Ozone crisis, and a new ice age was coming soon, if we didn't act quickly. There were a couple of years of particularly bad winters, so it was an easy sell. People panic, governments banned all kinds of crazy stuff. Global Warming became trendy, and the ozone hole declared 'fixed'. The ozone hole remained over the antarctic, and continued to grow and shrink, every year. Almost as predictable, as polar ice melting, and reforming. The amount of change varies from year to year. Not every natural process needs to be reduced to a single element. It's a combination of many factors. Calculus doesn't allow for this. There must be only on correct solution to the problem. Experts tend to have a very narrow focus, and become blinded to the rest of the world. It's a very large, dynamic planet.



No ozone crisis in 1970. We didn't have satellites then. Never heard of anyone flying a weather balloon over Antarctica or the Arctic. Not the easiest things to do.
As you say;
It's a very large, dynamic planet

I've been to 13 countries and counting. You've been to Oregon and Florida.
Why do you think I consider places other than Kentucky? When you've been to a lot of other places, it matters. And since I like science, it shows in my posts about how climate change affects different places.
At the same time, you readily discount history. That does matter. What helped the US win its independence from Britain was some very cold weather and a certain river that had frozen solid. How do you not know this?
George Washington was afraid of the Delaware River freezing over again. Then his crossing of that river would've been risky. What if his men fell through and froze? Or what if their boats couldn't cross the river? That's the battle that changed the revolution to his favor. And you're not aware of it.
That's kind of why we know it's getting warmer. Today, no such attack would be unexpected. The American Revolution would've been killed.

@ITN, I know this is the part that you hate. But I'm not responsible for how history turned out. And to you, it won't matter if we should do better by people.


And Harvey, you as a true patriotic American say it was just as warm on Dec. 25, 1776 as it is today. You love America. As someone who loves America, find out when was the last time the Delaware River froze over. If you fail to do this, God you're stupid. Such an easy way to say no warming occurs.
And yet you are right because? You say so just as Trump said he likes walking back stage at his pageants because it's his properties. 15 year old girls seemed to disagree. His best friend was Jefferey Epstein who was in his opinion a great man.
And as Trump said, my pageant, I can go anywhere and check the the girls out. Just wasn't shy about what an owner can do. And yet he's your hero.
And Harvey, you should say, can anyone prove he was looking at naked 15 year old girls because he owned the pageant? Can we prove he asked Georgia to find him more votes? We can't. But you love America, right?

As for Trump, he's always said that he and Jeff like young pretty girls. I mean seriously Harvey, 28 young girls for them to ogle. Just the 2 of them. What a guy.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/07/trump-and-epstein-and-28-girls-new-york-times

Yep Harvey, what Trumpsters support. We should put it on our flag and say America is Great Again. Love those pretty young girls. That's REAL American values.
Edited on 06-01-2021 03:24
06-01-2021 02:54
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
@All, a part of the climate debate is that a cooling stratosphere leads to a warming troposphere.
Does a warmer stratosphere which is predicted result in a warmer troposphere? This is causation.
They might be suggesting that the Arctic will warm because of the warmer stratosphere. The troposphere is supposed to cool when the stratosphere warms. Basically the warmer air of the stratosphere warms the troposphere in the arctic. This would be because heat quits rising via warm air thermals along polar jet stream.
In this instance, what allows the jet stream to shift? It's possible that the jet stream is pursuing a cooler stratosphere, one with more ozone in it. Just don't have access to the data I'd like to see.
This gets highly technical. This changes how warmer air from the tropopause into the stratosphere changes jet streams. Thing is, considering how a warmer stratosphere can influence the jet stream is probably more advanced than what you guys are ready for. It's not personal but it will bother you guys.
I'll try to give you guys an idea. The jet stream is like a tornado. A tornado is caused by cold northern air and warm southern air colliding. With the jet streams, it's probably the Van Allen Radiation belts and the Earth's different layers of its atmosphere interacting. Kind of why it's horizontal and not vertical. Like I said, it can get complicated. And internet searches are free. Check out the radiation belts and jet streams.
Edited on 06-01-2021 03:28
06-01-2021 03:29
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
Repeated post, deleted it. And Harvey, if your leisure time doesn't allow you to understand basic earth sciences, why are you here? Are you even aware of when the cathedrals in Europe were built?
I would ask about the Revolutionary War but you seem to be completely ignorant of how America came into being. Just no knowledge of it. It's rather difficult when Americans have no understanding of what settlers went through and how different tribes helped them.
Because England is warmed by the Gulf Stream, settlers were ill prepared for the cold weather of the North American continent. How any American does not know this, just no explanation for such ignorance. You have no clue how America became a country. That explains the perception of the climate debate. Americans really do not understand their own history.
Edited on 06-01-2021 03:37
06-01-2021 04:28
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
Not sure on this but if the Medieval Warm Period only lasted 300 years, we're 150 years into this warm period. At the same time, in 2016 the Earth's rotation increased in velocity. Will it's core radiate less heat as a result? The Little Ice Age lasted about 570 years. Maybe the inter-glacial period is coming to an end?
It does take about 80,000 years for a full on ice age to hit. And since according to scientists, the Earth's rotational velocity is increasing, this suggests that it's moment of inertia relative to the Sun's gravity is now allowing for the Earth to be more efficient in translating the Sun's gravitational effect into it's own momentum.
As far as inter-glacial periods go according to scientists, we're near the end of ours. They are short lived but do allow for the best life on the planet unless you're a polar bear. Kind of why we don't get along. You guys say the Earth only has one climate and yet the Great Cool Down might be underway.
That kind of goes back to Churchill and knowing the past. If anything, all we can do is to usher in cold weather. That's what warm weather brings. And if you live in the Philippines, a 1,000 years from now if not sooner, like 300 hundred years from now, it won't be so tropical.
06-01-2021 04:35
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
If you guys want, I can explain to you how the Earth's velocity through space and the length of it's day translates to the Sun's gravitational effect. This is like why does Venus have 93 earth atmosphere's of pressure yet it's atmosphere doesn't expand.
We actually discussed this a couple of years ago and it involved Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and how light from a distant star bends around the Sun. It didn't agree with Newton's Theory of Gravity. The bend was twice what his gravity allowed for.
Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth is. And yes, this gets into climate debate. How does the Sun's gravitational field translate into energy in our atmosphere?

And please remember, an atmosphere has pressure because it is contained by the planets magnetic field. With Venus at 93 earth atmospheres; in this link, look at magnetic field in thousands of times Earth's, This suggests their plasma field is suspended between 2 magnetic lines which traps it's heat/energy. This is like the aurora's in the magnetosphere.
https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2556
Edited on 06-01-2021 04:46
06-01-2021 04:48
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
C'mon guys. If the Sun's gravitational field is relative to the inverse square law, at what distance is it's gravity squared?
06-01-2021 04:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Correlation, doesn't equate causation... Back in the 1970, we had an Ozone crisis, and a new ice age was coming soon, if we didn't act quickly. There were a couple of years of particularly bad winters, so it was an easy sell. People panic, governments banned all kinds of crazy stuff. Global Warming became trendy, and the ozone hole declared 'fixed'. The ozone hole remained over the antarctic, and continued to grow and shrink, every year. Almost as predictable, as polar ice melting, and reforming. The amount of change varies from year to year. Not every natural process needs to be reduced to a single element. It's a combination of many factors. Calculus doesn't allow for this. There must be only on correct solution to the problem. Experts tend to have a very narrow focus, and become blinded to the rest of the world. It's a very large, dynamic planet.



No ozone crisis in 1970.

70s' idiot. He meant 70's. The ozone 'hole' was first discovered by sounding rockets in the late 60's and early 70's. A 'crisis' was manufactured by DuPont to maintain it's monopoly on refrigerants in 1975 since it's patents were running out on R12. CFC's (the component used in making R12) were blamed for destroying the ozone layer despite the fact that these chemicals are chemically inert with ozone, and they are heavier than air. Idiots like you believed them.
James___ wrote:
We didn't have satellites then.

The first satellite was launched in 1957. It was a simple radio beacon. It was launched by the USSR.
James___ wrote:
Never heard of anyone flying a weather balloon over Antarctica or the Arctic. Not the easiest things to do.

It's easier to fly a weather or a hot air balloon at the poles than anywhere else on Earth, due to the low temperatures at sea level.
James___ wrote:
As you say;
It's a very large, dynamic planet

I've been to 13 countries and counting. You've been to Oregon and Florida.

...so?
James___ wrote:
Why do you think I consider places other than Kentucky? When you've been to a lot of other places, it matters. And since I like science,

You deny science.
James___ wrote:
it shows in my posts about how climate change affects different places.

Define 'climate change'.
James___ wrote:
At the same time, you readily discount history. That does matter.

Inversion fallacy. You deny history.
James___ wrote:
What helped the US win its independence from Britain was some very cold weather and a certain river that had frozen solid. How do you not know this?

Nope. What helped the US win its independence was the revolutionary war, which was successful.
James___ wrote:
George Washington was afraid of the Delaware River freezing over again. Then his crossing of that river would've been risky. What if his men fell through and froze? Or what if their boats couldn't cross the river? That's the battle that changed the revolution to his favor. And you're not aware of it.

Crossing this river, whether it's frozen or not, is possible. This river partially froze in 2018 and DID freeze over entirely in 2014.
James___ wrote:
That's kind of why we know it's getting warmer. Today, no such attack would be unexpected. The American Revolution would've been killed.

The frozen river certainly helped the Patriot army, but that did not win the war.
James___ wrote:
@ITN, I know this is the part that you hate. But I'm not responsible for how history turned out. And to you, it won't matter if we should do better by people.

Random word salad. Ignored.
James___ wrote:
And Harvey, you as a true patriotic American say it was just as warm on Dec. 25, 1776 as it is today. You love America. As someone who loves America, find out when was the last time the Delaware River froze over. If you fail to do this, God you're stupid. Such an easy way to say no warming occurs.

The last time the Delaware river froze over was in 2014.


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
06-01-2021 05:20
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:

What helped the US win its independence from Britain was some very cold weather and a certain river that had frozen solid. How do you not know this?

Nope. What helped the US win its independence was the revolutionary war, which was successful.




If the war was successful then why is a political group trying to overthrow the election? Some people are still fighting to void the Republic which is the United States. They do not accept it's constitution.

p.s., winning that war is considered a conclusion. Sadly ITN, you remind me of my mother. She was part Native American yet had no understanding of reality. I guess that's how people like her are. And in knowing you, I understand now why she didn't want me to have a life.
Edited on 06-01-2021 05:26
06-01-2021 05:29
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3345)
What a load of crap to sort through, mostly irrelevant to pretty much anything... I've only lived in two states, doesn't mean I have been to others briefly. I'm just not flighty, or trying to escape. Studying the past, and history, is occasionally interesting, entertaining, maybe informative. I just have other interests and hobbies, which fun facts seldom have any impact. You can change, what has already happened, and there is little likelihood many of those historical things you worship, will ever happen again. Very little use, or value to my interests, basically a waste of time, trivial stuff, that matters little, other than to maybe impress the poorly educated. I'm just not that impressed easily.
06-01-2021 05:48
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What a load of crap to sort through, mostly irrelevant to pretty much anything... I've only lived in two states, doesn't mean I have been to others briefly. I'm just not flighty, or trying to escape. Studying the past, and history, is occasionally interesting, entertaining, maybe informative. I just have other interests and hobbies, which fun facts seldom have any impact. You can change, what has already happened, and there is little likelihood many of those historical things you worship, will ever happen again. Very little use, or value to my interests, basically a waste of time, trivial stuff, that matters little, other than to maybe impress the poorly educated. I'm just not that impressed easily.



I hope you don't mind my correcting your Engleske?

I'm just not that impressed easily.


Easily is a descriptive adjective. Such as, I'm not that easily impressed.

A descriptive adjective goes in front of the verb. It describes it. In your context,
I'm not that impressed, (comma) then an adverb such usually. It creates a condition on what impresses you. Just love you Americans.
As for the rest of your post, your poor Engleske makes it difficult what you're trying to say.
What a load of crap to sort through

Do you usually go through poop? It seems that you like sorting it.
mostly irrelevant to pretty much anything
poop usually isn't relevant. Why do you think it is?
I've only lived in two states, doesn't mean I have been to others briefly.

2 states is not the same as 2 countries. Myself, have lived in Florida, Washington, California, Arizona, Kentucky and Ohio. There's also Tennessee. That's excluding Norway.
If you don't get it, because of my hearing loss, no joking allowed. Either beg for you to like me or just be better than you. Everything in between is socialism.
06-01-2021 06:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

James wrote:

What helped the US win its independence from Britain was some very cold weather and a certain river that had frozen solid. How do you not know this?

Nope. What helped the US win its independence was the revolutionary war, which was successful.




If the war was successful then why is a political group trying to overthrow the election?

Different war, different group.
James___ wrote:
Some people are still fighting to void the Republic which is the United States.

And there will also be those that do.
James___ wrote:
They do not accept it's constitution.

Correct.
James___ wrote:
p.s., winning that war is considered a conclusion.

You are now no longer talking about the revolutionary war. If you want to talk about those those who want to overthrow the United States, that is a different topic entirely.
James___ wrote:
Sadly ITN, you remind me of my mother. She was part Native American yet had no understanding of reality.

Buzzword fallacy. You can't even define what 'reality' is. No one is part Native American. She was either born here or she wasn't. Which is it, dude?
James___ wrote:
I guess that's how people like her are. And in knowing you, I understand now why she didn't want me to have a life.

She gave it to you didn't she? Or were you born in a test tube? Are you the result of a life creation experiment that went horribly wrong?


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
06-01-2021 06:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
What a load of crap to sort through, mostly irrelevant to pretty much anything... I've only lived in two states, doesn't mean I have been to others briefly. I'm just not flighty, or trying to escape. Studying the past, and history, is occasionally interesting, entertaining, maybe informative. I just have other interests and hobbies, which fun facts seldom have any impact. You can change, what has already happened, and there is little likelihood many of those historical things you worship, will ever happen again. Very little use, or value to my interests, basically a waste of time, trivial stuff, that matters little, other than to maybe impress the poorly educated. I'm just not that impressed easily.



I hope you don't mind my correcting your Engleske?

I'm just not that impressed easily.


Easily is a descriptive adjective. Such as, I'm not that easily impressed.

Either use is correct, O incorrect grammar cop.
James___ wrote:
A descriptive adjective goes in front of the verb. It describes it. In your context,

Nope. It can go anywhere, O incorrect grammar cop.
James___ wrote:
Do you usually go through poop?

You do seem to make a lot of it.
James___ wrote:
It seems that you like sorting it.

And he was up to the task, nasty as it was.
James___ wrote:
mostly irrelevant to pretty much anything
poop usually isn't relevant. Why do you think it is?
I've only lived in two states, doesn't mean I have been to others briefly.

2 states is not the same as 2 countries. Myself, have lived in Florida, Washington, California, Arizona, Kentucky and Ohio. There's also Tennessee. That's excluding Norway.
If you don't get it, because of my hearing loss, no joking allowed. Either beg for you to like me or just be better than you. Everything in between is socialism.

Random word salad. Try English. It works better.


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
06-01-2021 06:25
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
Into the Night wrote:


James___ wrote:
Do you usually go through poop?

You do seem to make a lot of it.
.


I do use laxatives. Want to know more? As Harvey states, I have a "crap bag".
I can post pictures of it if you and Harvey like. He seems to like it more than I do because of how much he mentions it.
A stoma for an ileostomy is smaller and is what I would prefer. It's also cleaner, no poop involved. It's actually called feces or stool when it's excreted from the colon. They don't seem to have a name for what comes from the small intestines.
And if you have an ileostomy, you might not have to urinate, it all is discharged through your small intestines. How cool is that?
Edited on 06-01-2021 06:32
06-01-2021 06:27
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
HarveyH55 wrote:
What a load of crap to sort through, mostly irrelevant to pretty much anything... I've only lived in two states, doesn't mean I have been to others briefly. I'm just not flighty, or trying to escape. Studying the past, and history, is occasionally interesting, entertaining, maybe informative. I just have other interests and hobbies, which fun facts seldom have any impact. You can change, what has already happened, and there is little likelihood many of those historical things you worship, will ever happen again. Very little use, or value to my interests, basically a waste of time, trivial stuff, that matters little, other than to maybe impress the poorly educated. I'm just not that impressed easily.



You know Harvey, people who are fortunate enough to live in one place like you usually have a good life. Your posts say otherwise.
If you don't get it. you had one thing to worry about. How to have a good life. You are so lucky that way. I am jealous. If I say anything I would be bragging. But you're the lucky one.
Edited on 06-01-2021 06:53
06-02-2021 16:07
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
And another storm to watch, the link is Yahoo posting NBC.

On Friday, wind chill advisories were hoisted for parts of the Northern Plains and the Upper Midwest where values were forecast to dip to 30 to 50 degrees below zero during the upcoming weekend.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wind-chills-cold-50-degrees-145800628.html


When I checked the 10 day forecast for where I live, the 13th and 14th are expected to have highs of 15º F. and 16º F. respectively. The lows are forecast to be on the 12th, 13th and 14th are 7º F., -2º F. and 5º F.
And what is the polar jet stream from the Pacific Ocean over North America doing? It seems that initially (started yesterday?) it headed down south and goes over Texas. http://squall.sfsu.edu/scripts/namjetstream_model_fcst.html
And now we're back to the amount of ozone over the arctic. It seems that the higher than normal amount of ozone has created a larger polar vortex. In a way because of how significant of an area it covers, it seems to have brought the tropical jet stream into play.
https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/NH.html
Attached image:

06-02-2021 16:54
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(564)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Correlation, doesn't equate causation... Back in the 1970, we had an Ozone crisis, and a new ice age was coming soon, if we didn't act quickly. There were a couple of years of particularly bad winters, so it was an easy sell. People panic, governments banned all kinds of crazy stuff. Global Warming became trendy, and the ozone hole declared 'fixed'. The ozone hole remained over the antarctic, and continued to grow and shrink, every year. Almost as predictable, as polar ice melting, and reforming. The amount of change varies from year to year. Not every natural process needs to be reduced to a single element. It's a combination of many factors. Calculus doesn't allow for this. There must be only on correct solution to the problem. Experts tend to have a very narrow focus, and become blinded to the rest of the world. It's a very large, dynamic planet.


The ozone hole was always there, just that no one saw it.
06-02-2021 17:15
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3345)
Weather predictions beyond 3 days out, aren't very reliable, least in Florida. But, we are a lot different than any other state. Weather systems from the tropics conflict with the northern systems, usually keeping the worst of it, up in the Yankee states, where it belongs. A 5 day forecast only gives a very general, possible change. 10 days, is just virtual guessing.

Would higher ozone production, have shrunk the O-hole, and reduced the the ice age threat from the 1970s? The the massive increase in man-made CO2, in 2020, should have accelerated global warming, at an apocalyptic rate. We had record-breaking California wildfires, tens of thousand of businesses burned to the ground, by BLM 'peaceful protesters', increase in CO2 spewing, slow-boats from China, delivering crap ordered on Ebay and Amazon, with covid 'free' money. Where's the global warming now? Are the polar bears and penguins still dying by the thousands? Polar ice all melted yet?

Winter, isn't half over, for the Yankee states anyway. How much of the polar ice reformed so far? Didn't they just rescue a Norwegian fishing boat, trap in the ice? Not sure about the nationality of the boat, but likely the only ones that would trust a computer model, before heading out.
06-02-2021 19:31
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
Swan wrote:

The ozone hole was always there, just that no one saw it.



And yet stratospheric ozone is also depleted over areas where it has been measured for decades. I almost wonder if the fires in California aren't responsible for how much stratospheric ozone there is in the arctic now.
A couple of years ago when Eastern Australia was having so many brush fires, there wasn't a hole in the ozone layer then. I mean the fire season in California has lasted into January 2021, right?
It's not supposed to be wildfire season in California. Yet, a month into 2021, the Golden State has more than doubled the number of wildfires in 2020 – a record-setting year with more than 9,600 blazes that blackened more than 4 million acres.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/02/california-wildfires-january-cal-fire/4368052001/


And with Australia, you'll need to check the dates of the 2 news articles;
Bush fires started in September, 2019;
https://www.insider.com/when-how-australia-bushfires-started-in-2019-2020-1

2 months later, the hole in the ozone layer had not formed;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-24/sudden-stratospheric-warming-linked-to-smaller-ozone-hole/11631836

And now we see it with California and the ozone layer above the arctic.
06-02-2021 20:39
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(564)
James___ wrote:
Swan wrote:

The ozone hole was always there, just that no one saw it.



And yet stratospheric ozone is also depleted over areas where it has been measured for decades. I almost wonder if the fires in California aren't responsible for how much stratospheric ozone there is in the arctic now.
A couple of years ago when Eastern Australia was having so many brush fires, there wasn't a hole in the ozone layer then. I mean the fire season in California has lasted into January 2021, right?
It's not supposed to be wildfire season in California. Yet, a month into 2021, the Golden State has more than doubled the number of wildfires in 2020 – a record-setting year with more than 9,600 blazes that blackened more than 4 million acres.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/02/california-wildfires-january-cal-fire/4368052001/


And with Australia, you'll need to check the dates of the 2 news articles;
Bush fires started in September, 2019;
https://www.insider.com/when-how-australia-bushfires-started-in-2019-2020-1

2 months later, the hole in the ozone layer had not formed;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-24/sudden-stratospheric-warming-linked-to-smaller-ozone-hole/11631836

And now we see it with California and the ozone layer above the arctic.


Ozone is 5 billion years old, the decades of measuring are meaningless
06-02-2021 22:21
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
James___ wrote:
@All, a part of the climate debate is that a cooling stratosphere leads to a warming troposphere.


I read ozone depletion coincides with stratospheric cooling.

Perhaps the cause is there is just less O and O2 combination happening... Basically less ozone being produced, and less heating of the stratosphere...


06-02-2021 22:45
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All, a part of the climate debate is that a cooling stratosphere leads to a warming troposphere.


I read ozone depletion coincides with stratospheric cooling.

Perhaps the cause is there is just less O and O2 combination happening... Basically less ozone being produced, and less heating of the stratosphere...



I think you're right about that.
07-02-2021 02:40
James___
★★★★★
(4422)
Swan wrote:
James___ wrote:
Swan wrote:

The ozone hole was always there, just that no one saw it.



And yet stratospheric ozone is also depleted over areas where it has been measured for decades. I almost wonder if the fires in California aren't responsible for how much stratospheric ozone there is in the arctic now.
A couple of years ago when Eastern Australia was having so many brush fires, there wasn't a hole in the ozone layer then. I mean the fire season in California has lasted into January 2021, right?
It's not supposed to be wildfire season in California. Yet, a month into 2021, the Golden State has more than doubled the number of wildfires in 2020 – a record-setting year with more than 9,600 blazes that blackened more than 4 million acres.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/02/california-wildfires-january-cal-fire/4368052001/


And with Australia, you'll need to check the dates of the 2 news articles;
Bush fires started in September, 2019;
https://www.insider.com/when-how-australia-bushfires-started-in-2019-2020-1

2 months later, the hole in the ozone layer had not formed;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-24/sudden-stratospheric-warming-linked-to-smaller-ozone-hole/11631836

And now we see it with California and the ozone layer above the arctic.


Ozone is 5 billion years old, the decades of measuring are meaningless



Harvey's like you, he says we can't find a way to even know the weather a week from now. That's about how I feel about stuff like this, but it helps me to think clearly. It's a way to organize one's thoughts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9xB53gtyVY

Unless I have material to practice stuff like this, I won't be able to do it but at least I'll be familiar with it.
07-02-2021 02:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9020)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All, a part of the climate debate is that a cooling stratosphere leads to a warming troposphere.

I read ozone depletion coincides with stratospheric cooling.

Perhaps the cause is there is just less O and O2 combination happening... Basically less ozone being produced, and less heating of the stratosphere...

You are forgetting that the atmosphere is part of the earth; that part of the earth is heated mostly by the solid and liquid surface components of the earth.

Regardless of the amount of ozone in the atmosphere at any given time, the solid and liquid components of the earth will still be heating the atmosphere equally.

.


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
07-02-2021 03:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Correlation, doesn't equate causation... Back in the 1970, we had an Ozone crisis, and a new ice age was coming soon, if we didn't act quickly. There were a couple of years of particularly bad winters, so it was an easy sell. People panic, governments banned all kinds of crazy stuff. Global Warming became trendy, and the ozone hole declared 'fixed'. The ozone hole remained over the antarctic, and continued to grow and shrink, every year. Almost as predictable, as polar ice melting, and reforming. The amount of change varies from year to year. Not every natural process needs to be reduced to a single element. It's a combination of many factors. Calculus doesn't allow for this. There must be only on correct solution to the problem. Experts tend to have a very narrow focus, and become blinded to the rest of the world. It's a very large, dynamic planet.


The ozone hole was always there, just that no one saw it.


The ozone hole was discovered by folks shooting old sounding rockets from the Poker Flats research center to study how the auroras work. These rockets carried instrumentation to measure ozone, among other things. That was when they found much less than the expected ozone in the Arctic. It was wintertime, since that's the best time to see auroras.

A similar program repeated in the Antarctic found the same thing during it's winter.

They also found that the 'hole' disappears in the summer of that pole.

About a decade later, DuPont used the 'ozone hole scare' to justify the removal from the market R-12 refrigerant, which they were losing the patent on. The had a new patent on R134a, so they used the Fake Crisis (manufactured by DuPont) to convince morons in government to ban R-12 and require R134a instead.

'Crisis' solved.

Of course, the Church of the Ozone got it's start in all this, and it still exists.


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
07-02-2021 03:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
James___ wrote:
Swan wrote:

The ozone hole was always there, just that no one saw it.



And yet stratospheric ozone is also depleted over areas where it has been measured for decades. I almost wonder if the fires in California aren't responsible for how much stratospheric ozone there is in the arctic now.
A couple of years ago when Eastern Australia was having so many brush fires, there wasn't a hole in the ozone layer then. I mean the fire season in California has lasted into January 2021, right?
It's not supposed to be wildfire season in California. Yet, a month into 2021, the Golden State has more than doubled the number of wildfires in 2020 – a record-setting year with more than 9,600 blazes that blackened more than 4 million acres.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/02/california-wildfires-january-cal-fire/4368052001/


And with Australia, you'll need to check the dates of the 2 news articles;
Bush fires started in September, 2019;
https://www.insider.com/when-how-australia-bushfires-started-in-2019-2020-1

2 months later, the hole in the ozone layer had not formed;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-24/sudden-stratospheric-warming-linked-to-smaller-ozone-hole/11631836

And now we see it with California and the ozone layer above the arctic.

The ozone layer is not depleting and never was.

We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.


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
07-02-2021 03:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
Swan wrote:
James___ wrote:
Swan wrote:

The ozone hole was always there, just that no one saw it.



And yet stratospheric ozone is also depleted over areas where it has been measured for decades. I almost wonder if the fires in California aren't responsible for how much stratospheric ozone there is in the arctic now.
A couple of years ago when Eastern Australia was having so many brush fires, there wasn't a hole in the ozone layer then. I mean the fire season in California has lasted into January 2021, right?
It's not supposed to be wildfire season in California. Yet, a month into 2021, the Golden State has more than doubled the number of wildfires in 2020 – a record-setting year with more than 9,600 blazes that blackened more than 4 million acres.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/02/california-wildfires-january-cal-fire/4368052001/


And with Australia, you'll need to check the dates of the 2 news articles;
Bush fires started in September, 2019;
https://www.insider.com/when-how-australia-bushfires-started-in-2019-2020-1

2 months later, the hole in the ozone layer had not formed;
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-24/sudden-stratospheric-warming-linked-to-smaller-ozone-hole/11631836

And now we see it with California and the ozone layer above the arctic.


Ozone is 5 billion years old, the decades of measuring are meaningless


No. Ozone has no age.
It is constantly created and destroyed by UV light. Ozone is also an unstable substance. It will naturally decay into oxygen over time.

See the Chapman cycle.


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
07-02-2021 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All, a part of the climate debate is that a cooling stratosphere leads to a warming troposphere.


I read ozone depletion coincides with stratospheric cooling.

Perhaps the cause is there is just less O and O2 combination happening... Basically less ozone being produced, and less heating of the stratosphere...

The temperature of the stratosphere is unknown. Ozone does not affect temperature. It is not energy. You can't destroy energy into nothing.


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 07-02-2021 03:24
07-02-2021 03:38
keepit
★★★★★
(2218)
Ozone yields net energy when it breaks apart.
07-02-2021 17:58
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All, a part of the climate debate is that a cooling stratosphere leads to a warming troposphere.

I read ozone depletion coincides with stratospheric cooling.

Perhaps the cause is there is just less O and O2 combination happening... Basically less ozone being produced, and less heating of the stratosphere...

You are forgetting that the atmosphere is part of the earth; that part of the earth is heated mostly by the solid and liquid surface components of the earth.

Regardless of the amount of ozone in the atmosphere at any given time, the solid and liquid components of the earth will still be heating the atmosphere equally.

.


The facts do not support your position.

Starting at the ground, and continuing to an altitude close to 6 miles, the air gets colder and colder, reaching a low temperature, on average, of close to -50 degrees Celsius by 6 miles. This is where most clouds form.

Starting around an altitude of 6 miles, and continuing to an altitude close to 30 miles, the air gets warmer and warmer, reaching a moderate temperature, on average, of close to 20 degrees Celsius by 30 miles. This is the where the chemical ozone forms.



You really should try explaining why average temperature in the atmosphere goes around - 50 C at 6 miles altitude to + 20 C by 30 miles altitude.

Here you go, this is how the temperature inversion in the stratosphere is explained:

The chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion.



Edited on 07-02-2021 18:05
07-02-2021 18:39
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3345)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All, a part of the climate debate is that a cooling stratosphere leads to a warming troposphere.

I read ozone depletion coincides with stratospheric cooling.

Perhaps the cause is there is just less O and O2 combination happening... Basically less ozone being produced, and less heating of the stratosphere...

You are forgetting that the atmosphere is part of the earth; that part of the earth is heated mostly by the solid and liquid surface components of the earth.

Regardless of the amount of ozone in the atmosphere at any given time, the solid and liquid components of the earth will still be heating the atmosphere equally.

.


The facts do not support your position.

Starting at the ground, and continuing to an altitude close to 6 miles, the air gets colder and colder, reaching a low temperature, on average, of close to -50 degrees Celsius by 6 miles. This is where most clouds form.

Starting around an altitude of 6 miles, and continuing to an altitude close to 30 miles, the air gets warmer and warmer, reaching a moderate temperature, on average, of close to 20 degrees Celsius by 30 miles. This is the where the chemical ozone forms.



You really should try explaining why average temperature in the atmosphere goes around - 50 C at 6 miles altitude to + 20 C by 30 miles altitude.

Here you go, this is how the temperature inversion in the stratosphere is explained:

The chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion.


First, averages, don't really have much value, since they lack any information the would actually be useful, to describe the data set used.

Air gets thinner, less dense, as you go higher up. Fewer molecules to transfer thermal energy. Less crap, to heat a thermometer, means lower temperature readings. If you are going to use tools, you need to learn how to use them correctly. The average temperature of the US is in the 40s, and most people are still shoveling snow. That average, doesn't mention it's 75 F in Florida. Rained a lot last night, but it's sunny, and drying out.

Measuring temperature works fine, on stationary objects, but not so well on a moving target.
07-02-2021 18:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9020)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You are forgetting that the atmosphere is part of the earth; that part of the earth is heated mostly by the solid and liquid surface components of the earth.


Regardless of the amount of ozone in the atmosphere at any given time, the solid and liquid components of the earth will still be heating the atmosphere equally.
The facts do not support your position.[/quote]
FACT CHECK shows Spongy Iris' claim is FALSE and categorizes Spongy Iris as "Scientifically Illiterate."

Spongy Iris wrote: You really should try explaining why average temperature in the atmosphere goes around - 50 C at 6 miles altitude to + 20 C by 30 miles altitude.

FACT CHECK: Spongy Iris' baseless claim of somehow knowing the atmosphere's average temperature is declared "WACKY" and "ZANY" and is consistent with his scientific illiteracy.

Spongy Iris should explain why he strangely believes he knows these "average temperatures." He probably will say "Look it up!" or "Google it!" or he'll throw us a Wikipedia link.


.


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
07-02-2021 22:45
keepit
★★★★★
(2218)
IBD,
Ozone breaking apart is exothermic. Google it.
Also, arguing that the atmosphere is part of the earth is just a semantic argument that ignores the science of the atmosphere which includes greenhouse theory.
Edited on 07-02-2021 22:45
07-02-2021 23:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9020)
keepit wrote: IBD,, Ozone breaking apart is exothermic. Google it.

keepit, ozone forming is endothermic. Google it.

Oh, by the way, did you have a point or are you still mindlessly babbling?

keepit wrote: Also, arguing that the atmosphere is part of the earth is just a semantic argument

Have you yet learned that all arguments are semantic arguments, that saying "semantic argument" is redundant ... or are you still having trouble grasping the concept?

keepit wrote: ...that ignores the science of the atmosphere which includes greenhouse theory.

What is this "greenhouse theory" that you claim I am ignoring?

.


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
Edited on 07-02-2021 23:18
10-02-2021 00:34
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You are forgetting that the atmosphere is part of the earth; that part of the earth is heated mostly by the solid and liquid surface components of the earth.


Regardless of the amount of ozone in the atmosphere at any given time, the solid and liquid components of the earth will still be heating the atmosphere equally.
The facts do not support your position.

FACT CHECK shows Spongy Iris' claim is FALSE and categorizes Spongy Iris as "Scientifically Illiterate."

Spongy Iris wrote: You really should try explaining why average temperature in the atmosphere goes around - 50 C at 6 miles altitude to + 20 C by 30 miles altitude.

FACT CHECK: Spongy Iris' baseless claim of somehow knowing the atmosphere's average temperature is declared "WACKY" and "ZANY" and is consistent with his scientific illiteracy.
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris should explain why he strangely believes he knows these "average temperatures." He probably will say "Look it up!" or "Google it!" or he'll throw us a Wikipedia link.


We have already discussed this. Google "Satellite temperature measurements"

Better put on your tin foil hat to shield that pesky voice to skull technology that must be plaguing you




Edited on 10-02-2021 00:40
10-02-2021 05:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
keepit wrote:
Ozone yields net energy when it breaks apart.

There is no such thing as 'net energy'.


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
10-02-2021 05:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
James___ wrote:
@All, a part of the climate debate is that a cooling stratosphere leads to a warming troposphere.

I read ozone depletion coincides with stratospheric cooling.

Perhaps the cause is there is just less O and O2 combination happening... Basically less ozone being produced, and less heating of the stratosphere...

You are forgetting that the atmosphere is part of the earth; that part of the earth is heated mostly by the solid and liquid surface components of the earth.

Regardless of the amount of ozone in the atmosphere at any given time, the solid and liquid components of the earth will still be heating the atmosphere equally.

.


The facts do not support your position.

In fact, they do.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Starting at the ground, and continuing to an altitude close to 6 miles, the air gets colder and colder, reaching a low temperature, on average, of close to -50 degrees Celsius by 6 miles. This is where most clouds form.

Most clouds do not form in the tropopause. They form in the troposphere at various altitudes, even at zero altitude (fog).
Spongy Iris wrote:
Starting around an altitude of 6 miles, and continuing to an altitude close to 30 miles, the air gets warmer and warmer, reaching a moderate temperature, on average, of close to 20 degrees Celsius by 30 miles. This is the where the chemical ozone forms.

WRONG. Ozone is formed by the interaction of UV-B light on oxygen in the lower stratosphere down to the tropopause. This is an endothermic reaction, which also takes thermal energy out of the air and converts it to chemical energy.
Spongy Iris wrote:

[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
You really should try explaining why average temperature in the atmosphere goes around - 50 C at 6 miles altitude to + 20 C by 30 miles altitude.

Ozone is destroyed by the interaction of UV-C light upon ozone in the upper stratosphere. This is an exothermic reaction, converting chemical energy to thermal energy.

The ratio of the ozone being created and the ozone being destroyed follows a gradient throughout the stratosphere, giving the stratosphere a fairly uniform temperature inversion.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Here you go, this is how the temperature inversion in the stratosphere is explained:

The chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion.

WRONG. The creation of ozone from oxygen is an endothermic reaction. The atmosphere around it is colder because of it.


Not also that total thermal energy in the atmosphere goes down in a fairly uniform manner through the entire atmosphere. There is no energy inversion. Temperature is average thermal energy, not total thermal energy. This effect is because of decreasing density of air at altitude.

Charts like this are a bit confusing, since they show temperature profile only, not energy distribution profile.

You should go read up on the Chapman cycle.


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
10-02-2021 05:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15452)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
Ozone breaking apart is exothermic. Google it.

Ozone forming is endothermic. Google it.
keepit wrote:
Also, arguing that the atmosphere is part of the earth is just a semantic argument that ignores the science of the atmosphere which includes greenhouse theory.

Fallacy fallacy. There is no such thing as 'greenhouse theory'. The phrase 'greenhouse gas' in turn depends on the definition of 'global warming', which you have never defined.

No theory can be constructed out of a fallacy, such as a void argument.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Storm Predictions:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Florida Is Considering a $6 Billion Storm Surge Option2213-02-2021 09:00
Tropical Storm Barry2517-07-2019 01:59
'The youth have risen!' Climate strikers storm the streets326-03-2019 06:50
Hurricane Florence is a Once IN A Lifetime storm3618-09-2018 19:45
Must've Been a Strong Storm007-10-2017 17:26
▲ 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