15 SCIENCE VERSUS PROPAGANDA

If we want to understand the climate system we need to be concerned with both the input and the output side of the energy flows. The singular focus on the output side of the energy equation and the constant promotion of ‘greenhouse theory’ is the result of unidimensional thinking that is realms away from the real world.

GREENHOUSE THEORY AND ATMSOPHERIC REALITY

Greenhouse theory is based on a thesis that, in our quieter more rational moments we know to be unphysical.

  1. Cloud mediates the amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth directly modulating surface temperature.
  2. Air that is free to move is rapidly displaced upwards as soon as it warms. Uplift beings cooler air that enables relatively warm objects to become cool. We call this a wind chill effect and over the bulk of the Earth that is cooler than is comfortable we calculate a ‘misery index’ based on the temperature of the air, its humidity and the rate at which it is moving.
  3. Only when the air is warmer than the object that it envelopes can it be a source of warming. A house that is well sealed can keep warm while a house that is not well sealed is draughty and cold. A fridge that is poorly sealed or lacking efficient insulation (still air is a good insulator, moving air is not) wastes energy.
  4. The atmosphere cools strongly with elevation so that the warmest air is always at the surface, but only briefly so. The temperature of the air at the surface varies with the temperature of the surface that warms it, not the temperature of the cooler air aloft. The lapse rate of temperature with elevation is limited by the release of latent heat and reversed in the presence of sufficient ozone. The temperature of the air aloft is governed in the main by it’s ozone content and the amount of long wave energy issuing from the Earth itself.
  5. Cold dense air moves laterally or descends to replace warm less dense air and the process continues until the temperature differential between warm and cool objects at the surface entirely disappears.

Points 2-5 above relate to the movement of the air that determines the sort of air that is contact with a warm object. Movement is associated with cooling and it continues until the temperature differential disappears. Only if the amount of energy entering the system increases and the system can store the energy accruing can the temperature of the system increase. The ocean stores energy but the atmosphere can not do this. As a gas, it very quickly dissipates energy via transport and radiation. Any back radiation effect is countered by increase in vertical transport unless the air can be stabilized. That is what insulation is all about. There is no stabilizing insulating medium in the atmosphere. If there were, we would soon know about it.

THE SINGLE GLOBAL STATISTIC IS NONSENSE

A global statistic for the temperature of the Earth as a whole is useless in discerning cause and effect. It transpires that when we look at temperature change by the decade some months exhibit warming, others warming at a lesser rate while yet other months exhibit either little change or actual cooling. This is not a scenario that can be produced under a regime of energy accrual that is steady, remorseless and uniform across space and time.

In the Antarctic we see warming in winter that is strongest in August and September and actual cooling in summer. The fact of cooling indicates that there is some other factor that is obviously far more influential in changing surface temperature than the greenhouse idea.

Antarctic near surface air T

Source of data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

The high latitudes of the southern hemisphere are now cooler in the height of summer between November and February than they were seven decades ago. The mid winter months that were coolest have become the warmest.   This warming has occurred at a time when the region sees no sunshine at all during which outgoing radiation to heat the atmosphere is at a seasonal minimum. In fact the temperature of the atmosphere over the pole in winter depends upon atmospheric dynamics.

In winter, the temperature of the surface in Antarctica falls from -5° C to -20°C but the temperature of the atmosphere at 50hPa falls from -45°C to -80°C and remains at about that temperature as the surface warms in spring. Extreme cooling that is unrelated to surface conditions or radiation from the sun is due to the descent of mesospheric air in winter, the degree and duration of the cooling process greater in the Antarctic than the Arctic. Apart from being very cold mesospheric air has little ozone and possesses trace amounts of NOx that, when introduced into the stratosphere actively destroys ozone. The flood of mesospheric air into the southern hemisphere is responsible for generally depleted levels of ozone in that hemisphere.

We need to be sensible about this question of climate change. Surely the inflation of the global temperature statistic via the inclusion of Antarctic data where surface temperatures are abominably and inhospitably cold is nonsense.  Indeed the bulk of the globe is unfavourably cold in winter. Warming in winter in cold climates beneficially extends the growing season. If we were genuinely interested in the danger to humanity from excessive heat we should be focusing on summer temperatures in daylight hours in those latitudes where extra warmth might be disadvantageous. The lack of interest in diagnosing where and when temperature has increased and the inclusion of those parts of the globe that although warming remain dangerously cold simply serves to inflate the global temperature statistic. It indicates a focus on propaganda and an apparent lack of any real interest in diagnosis and problem solving. There is no attempt to accurately define the phenomenon, describe its nature with any precision and work out whether it represents a real problem or not. We respect science that is analytical, accurate, precise and therefore meaningful. The global warming hysteria meets none of these criteria.   It appears to be based on a rising of the spleen, an antipathy to the notion of industrialization and the romanticizing of the idea of a return to a simpler, agrarian, vegan, and vegetarian hippy existence. California is the hotbed of these ideas. Antithetically, it is also the home of Silicon Valley.

FIVE DECADES OF COOLING IN THE ARCTIC

It is instructive to examine the flux in surface temperature in the Arctic. See the figure below. The Arctic cooled in most months until 1997-2006. It is the winter from October through to March that see the greatest warming and this is the season that needs to warm in order to make high latitudes more habitable.

Logically, for cooling to manifest in winter over five decades, from 1948 through to 1987 some other factor is at work that overwhelms any tendency for temperature to increase due to greenhouse gases of anthropogenic origin. If cooling can occur due to ‘another factor’ then its quite possible that warming can also occur due to the influence of that ‘other factor’. If we cannot identify and quantify the response to the factor responsible for the cooling and the warming we make a basic error in logic when we suggest that the warming is due to the influence of man. People who have a genuine interest in cause and effect don’t make that sort of error.

Arctic near surface air T

All attempts at problem solving should begin with close observation of all parts of the system on both short and long time scales. The variability that we observe in the change in surface temperature according to hemisphere, latitude and time of the year is indicative of a source of change that is inconsistent with the greenhouse hypothesis. In the absence of an understanding of the origin of that process we are in the dark. Predictions are not possible. We should have no confidence in those who asset that they can tell us what will happen over time. They are plainly charlatans.

In the chapters to come we will see that change in cloud albedo is a process driven by high latitude atmospheric dynamics in the winter hemisphere and from Antarctica in particular. This mode of causation is consistent with the nature of the change that we observe. Temperature change is seasonal and it affects high latitudes more than low latitudes because high latitudes are close to the field of activity at the time of the year when activity occurs. We will see that temperature change at the surface is related to change in the temperature of that part of the atmosphere that contains ozone. Ozone drives atmospheric pressure. Change in surface pressure changes the planetary winds. Structure is a product of process.

The scare campaign about ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is not based on science. Science demands observation and logic.  There is a ‘disconnect’ between observed change and the hypothesis put forward to explain that observation. The constant focus on an aggregated global statistic represents a propaganda exercise rather than a measured attempt at providing meaningful advice.   Reason and integrity has gone out the window. The failure of those we trust as scientists is at the most elementary level.

A WARNING IGNORED

The reader is urged to read an essay by JM Wallace, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington  and a pioneer in the field who believed, unlike this author, that the increase in carbon dioxide results in surface warming. Back in 1998 Wallace implores his colleagues to be circumspect in the predictions and the advice that they offer. His essay can be accessed here: http://www.cimms.ou.edu/~doswell/Wallace_Greenhouse.html

The behaviour of those members of the climate science community that concerned Wallace back in 1998, at a time when global temperatures had very recently risen to values not exceeded in the succeeding 18 years , has continued unabated. Wallace’s essay is a circumspect evaluation of the state of climate science, reveals a man who is wise in the ways of mankind, the political system, the place of science in society and the scope for the whole to be subverted by activists who understand little and believe that ‘the end justifies the means’ in pursuing an objective that they see as desirable.

Wallace makes these points:

In the years ahead, scientific understanding can play a valuable role in shaping public opinion and guiding national and international policy on greenhouse gas emissions, but only to the extent that:

  1. the research community is able to demonstrate continuing progress in narrowing the range of uncertainty inherent in the predictions of global climate change and,
  2. the majority of individual scientists are able to maintain the independence from the various political constituencies with interests in this issue, and
  3. the public retains its confidence in the integrity of the scientific enterprise.

Climate scientists have demonstrably failed in all three areas. But the march goes on regardless

DISASTER

Entire industries and the people that work in them are now being affected by misplaced zealotry. Coal mines are being shut down as humanity turns to more expensive intermittent sources of energy that have to be fully backed up with utilities that have to lie idle in reserve. In recent years the price of the fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas has collapsed making these fuels more affordable. However, underdeveloped societies that are energy poor are being denied access to the cheapest sources of energy and urged to install windmills and solar panels that are subsidised from the taxpayers purse.  Whole towns and districts are being laid waste. This is ridiculous. I can’t laugh. I cry. Society has gone mad. Mankind is consuming itself in pursuit of an idea that has no substance.

 

Advertisements

36 thoughts on “15 SCIENCE VERSUS PROPAGANDA

  1. Hi Earl, I totally agree with the ridiculous notion of a single, relatively short term, global temperature. Poles and equatorial aside, day and night alternate 12hrly. I note the change in reported max versus mins. Mostly warmer mins it seems…Who needs to care about That? no need to mention any form of spatially weighted data nor UHI adjustments. Stick to common climatic Zones. – About six of them on earth I think. Cheers, macha

    Like

    1. There is. I just can’t lay my hands on the link. The more difficult challenge is not using corrupted data. Ie stuff with poor adjustments.

      Like

  2. Hourly data is the scientific way to go. You can then measure degree hours above and below thresholds. Its available at airports and anywhere where the data is collected digitally.

    Like

  3. This post reads somewhat like a cruel joke. Despite that you’re familiar with the terms and data, you totally misrepresent basic principles and physics. For example:

    “Cloud mediates the amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth directly modulating surface temperature.”

    Yes, clouds have a reflective, albedo effect, but they also absorb infrared and store latent heat during night. Therefore, they modulate both incoming and outgoing heat budgets. So…what does this have to do with greenhouse theory?!?

    “Air that is free to move is rapidly displaced upwards as soon as it warms.”

    Yes, that’s true. But again, this has nothing to do with greenhouse theory. Greenhouse gas composition affects the absorbing wavelengths of the atmosphere and hence the amount of reflected heat that it uptakes (regardless of absolute temperature or altitude. In the tropics, surface winds are warmed from below. The rate of warming is enhanced at higher GHG concentrations.

    “Only when the air is warmer than the object that it envelopes can it be a source of warming…”

    False. By warming even cold air, the temperature gradient is reduced (along with latent heat loss to the atmosphere), which has the same effect as warming on the system as a whole. During summer, air temperatures are higher than the land, sea, and ice and directly warm those surroundings. Higher GHG concentrations mean higher infrared uptake by the atmosphere, which warms all of those surroundings. This process is rather rudimentary and covered in intro textbooks, though—why is it being glossed over?

    Points 4-5 are similarly irrelevant, except that you bring up ozone as a component of atmospheric heating. You do realize that ozone is a greenhouse gas, correct? So why all the discussion of ozone but not other GHG’s, whether CO2 (which has the strongest radiative forcing) or otherwise?

    “Only if the amount of energy entering the system increases and the system can store the energy accruing can the temperature of the system increase.”

    That’s correct. Increasing GHG concentrations has increased the total heat energy in the system by reducing the energy lost to space. This heat is stored both in the atmosphere (contrary to your claim) and the oceans. Again, these concepts are basic principles in climate science, which support greenhouse theory (why do you think the oceans are warming?).

    “…This is not a scenario that can be produced under a regime of energy accrual that is steady, remorseless and uniform across space and time.”

    No, that’s completely wrong. Greenhouse theory doesn’t predict a steady warming across every month, latitude, or altitude, due to climate dynamics that affect heat transport within the system. Hence to monitor climatic warming, we attempt to characterize heat gained in the surface components (especially atmosphere and oceans, but also the cryosphere and ground), averaged spatially and temporally.

    “Surely the inflation of the global temperature statistic via the inclusion of Antarctic data where surface temperatures are abominably and inhospitably cold is nonsense.”

    What do you mean, ‘inflate’ the global temperature statistic? And where are you getting this ‘global temperature statistic’ from? I’ve never heard this used. It sounds like you don’t understand the reasoning behind measuring global surface, tropospheric, and stratospheric temperature anomalies.

    “If we were genuinely interested in the danger to humanity from excessive heat we should be focusing on summer temperatures in daylight hours in those latitudes where extra warmth might be disadvantageous.”

    Aren’t we?? Do a literature search for global warming and heat waves in Europe and Asia, as one example. You’ll find plenty of interest.

    “The lack of interest in diagnosing where and when temperature has increased…”

    What lack of interest? The scientific literature is flooded with such investigations!

    “The variability that we observe in the change in surface temperature according to hemisphere, latitude and time of the year is indicative of a source of change that is inconsistent with the greenhouse hypothesis.”

    How so? This claim is beyond ridiculous, given what we know about surface dynamics (how heat is transported around the globe, quite unevenly) and local feedbacks (e.g. the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice but relative stability of Antarctic sea ice).

    Perhaps you’d like to argue these points, but put simply: your claims appear significantly under-informed and are not persuasive to any trained climatologist.

    Like

    1. Ageofrocks. Thank you for your comprehensive comments. You are well schooled in climate science. Great. Lets have a discussion.

      You seem to have an unshakeable belief in the greenhouse hypothesis. Lets look at that question directly. Can I inquire as to what you think heats the stratosphere?

      Like

    1. Yes. Disgusting behavior. Quite predicable from my analysis on Jo Nova’s blog. The CAGW true believers spread the word but cannot and will not defend it. They have convinced themselves that they win the argument if it cannot be answered with a six word sentence. Hence, they view a hit and run tactic demolishes all of your many words, charts, and cites of actual evidence, Engaging them is pointless. It gives them a platform that grants them credence they have not and cannot earn. Even showing them for what they are will have no impact upon their thinking or behavior. I suggest answer with a “whatever” and leave it at that.

      Comment on your website: Interesting accumulation of climate data and analysis. It demonstrates the total insanity of attempting to reduce climate to a single number representing the rate of change of the residual from the periodic time averaged “mean global temperature” as a function of a trace component of the atmosphere. As you have pointed out, the computational result is meaningless to start with. Yet the scientifically, philosophically, and mathematically deficient public has become totally bamboozled by repeated authoritative like assertions of its significance, future trajectory, and prophesied catastrophic effect. They believe it BECAUSE they don’t understand it and think the CAGW true believer does.

      Besides not feeding CAGW true believers, we have a monumental task of educating the public about things scientific, philosophical, and mathematical. If we are going to make a difference, we can’t give up.

      Like

      1. Lionel,
        Thanks for taking the time to comment. When I began to look at climate data I fondly imagined that I would find a few individuals just as interested as myself to bounce ideas off and hopefully come to a common viewpoint. It’s comforting to find someone who will agree when you lay out a new paradigm. It did not happen. Academia spurns the amateur. But, when you search you find that there are in fact others whose shoulders you can stand on, people whose ideas were sound, whose worthy contributions can be resurrected. Its rare however, to find a contemporary collaborator. There are lots of debaters and point scorers out there who seek amusement.

        The interesting thing is that the best and most original contributions come from outside the academic establishment, people like De Bort and Dobson who toiled away in their own time. There is a group of people studying the ‘annular modes’ following on the work of Wallace, who should be interested in discovering a more powerful and pervasive driver of the planetary circulation than heating in the tropics. Unfortunately they are locked into ‘groupthink’.

        As a former high school teacher of ten years standing who liked nothing better than to teach climate, I’m still at it when most of my contemporaries have ‘gone fishing’.

        Like

      2. I once taught high school chemistry, physics, and math. Loved to teach but couldn’t stand the poverty. Got a graduate degree in Pharmacology. Then took a job as a bio mechanical engineer, discovered computers and transitioned to being a software engineer. Been doing that for 50 years. Yes, I am an old timer – 79 years on May 12.

        As a farmers son, I have/had an interest in weather. Looked at the so called greenhouse effect and global warming an found a totally bogus belief system they called climate science. Have been studying the intellectual/philosophical/logical crimes behind their beliefs since the early 1990. My commentary on the climate topic is mostly about the results from that study.

        The goal of simulating a non-linear chaotic system such as our so called climate is a total non-starter. The least of the problems is specifying initial conditions accurately. A chaotic system simply does not have a calculable path to prediction beyond a week or so. It is beyond absurd over time spans of a century. The granularity of computer based computations grantees a rapid failure to match reality. Then when one starts calling the output of a computer simulation “data”, you have passed into a fantasy realm without reality content. Sadly, we are spending trillions on that seriously pathological fantasy.

        As I have said, we have to stop feeding them and figure out how to avoid becoming collateral damage in the chaos that follows.

        Like

  4. Lionel, How to get them off the nipple is the problem. Today, my task is to find a town planning consultant, another environmental gatekeeper. We give these people such license as if they were all knowing, god like creatures who act for the greater good. The truth is otherwise.

    Like

    1. Ask them to define the “greater good”. They cannot. It does not and cannot exist apart from living breathing thinking individuals. They see “good” as anti man, anti mind, and anti life. It is not so much that they want to live, they want you to die.

      Like

  5. Lionell Griffith says: May 12, 2016 at 8:50 am
    “The granularity of computer based computations grantees a rapid failure to match reality. Then when one starts calling the output of a computer simulation “data”, you have passed into a fantasy realm without reality content. Sadly, we are spending trillions on that seriously pathological fantasy. As I have said, we have to stop feeding them and figure out how to avoid becoming collateral damage in the chaos that follows.”

    I agree wholeheartedly with the above. Earth’s weather systems are much more deterministic than chaotic The drivers of the deterministic are specifically ignored by all of the academic meteorologists; who instead cling to the superstitions and misuse of phrases like ‘air parcels’, ‘adiabatic uplift’, ‘geopotential height’ and ‘hydrostatic equilibrium’ of a compressible yet ‘well mixed’ atmosphere.
    It is no wonder that the scam of meteorology was better scammed by the AlGorestas. Many if these same academics refuse to admit that they are still so effectively scammed. Some like Erl even go so far as to regurgitate the same EMR nonsense introduced by the Gorestas but merely substitute a different atmospheric gas that also does nothing.

    OK Erl you are up next!

    Like

    1. Will, do me a favour and make your comment specific rather than general. For instance: What is responsible for the temperature of the stratosphere? By the way, I am not a meteorologist.

      Like

      1. Erl, the stratosphere at pressures below 10kPa does not have a temperature. Through a sufficent mass of stratosphere it can have radiance at some frequencies. When balloon borne instrumentation is used there can be no physical determination made whether the instrument or stratosphere is being affected. The sensible heat even of the ice is just to low. The stratopause temperature is is thought to be limited to zero Celcius as this is where much sensible heat or radiant energy must be applied to melt the ice crystals.
        Now for you! How much atmosphere does the Earth have? Why does it have that amount?

        Like

  6. “You can check the temperature of the stratosphere at 70hPa in °C here: ”
    That is a calculation of the apparent radiant temperature of a large but unspecified number of O2 molecules at a small bandwidth microwave radiance. What meaning does such a calculation have to you? What is the temperature between those molecules? How much heat(h) or warmth does such a calculation imply, to you? Such measurement and calculation are valuable; and nice to have; but without proper interpretation are quite meaningless! Can you specify what such means to you? How does such a calculation relate to anything else? Does such a ‘temperature’ ever have meaning in isolation? How much ‘atmosphere’ does Earth have?

    Like

  7. Will,
    Last time I looked it up there was more than O2 in the atmosphere. Some N2 as well. You have me confused now!

    Seriously, its the fact that there is a gradient in temperature at that pressure level (and therefore density) that is of more interest to me. There is a strong relationship between temperature, the direction of movement of the air and surface pressure as you see here. http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-0.59,-90.43,410/loc=85.348,-50.070

    Like

    1. erl happ says: May 12, 2016 at 4:15 pm

      “Will, Last time I looked it up there was more than O2 in the atmosphere. Some N2 as well. You have me confused now!”

      Have you even tried to check on what is actually being measured by the instrumentation? They call it temperature so you call it temperature. What is actually being measured? BTW the nullschool simulation is just that a simulation, a animated cartoon. A well done cartoon.

      “Seriously, its the fact that there is a gradient in temperature at that pressure level (and therefore density) that is of more interest to me.”
      Do you mean the different colors? if the pressure is constant and the temperature has a gradient the atmospheric density also has a gradient as determined by this atmosphere’s isentropic exponent (1.4) and the gas laws. This may be of interest, but does such have any meaning to you? What meaning does that gradient have to you?

      “There is a strong relationship between temperature, the direction of movement of the air and surface pressure as you see here”
      The descending atmosphere near the south pole with higher surface pressure is the atmosphere that was forced upward by the Earth’s centrifuge near 60° south latitude with an eastward velocity near 225 m/s. Do you find it surprising that such exhibits a clockwise rotation pattern on decent? The atmosphere descending from the stratosphere went upward near the equator with very low surface pressure but a eastward velocity near 450 m/s so that stuff spins even faster! This is all completely understandable using fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics. O3 plays no role in such a mechanism.

      Like

      1. Will, you say this: if the pressure is constant and the temperature has a gradient the atmospheric density also has a gradient

        Exactly, and that gradient in density is material to the uplift of the air that is warmer.

        Will, you say: This is all completely understandable using fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics.

        Then tell me why surface pressure has fallen south of 50° of latitude over the last 60 years.

        Like

  8. erl happ says: May 12, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    (“Will, you say this: if the pressure is constant and the temperature has a gradient the atmospheric density also has a gradient”)

    “Exactly, and that gradient in density is material to the uplift of the air that is warmer.”

    Again no definition of what you may possibly mean with the intentionally confusing word “warmer”. If you mean higher temperature say so, if you mean higher heat content say so, if you mean different atmospheric density that atmosphere 20 km north or south say so. There exist some minor upward thermally induced acceleration of very local airmass called “thermals”. Such have little or no effect on weather or climate. Most of academic meteorology refer to such as “convection” with the intent only to confuse and misdirect away from the deliberate SCAM.

    “Will, you say: This is all completely understandable using fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics.
    Then tell me why surface pressure has fallen south of 50° of latitude over the last 60 years.”

    The simple answer is I do not know! I was referring to the Earth’s centrifuge; mechanically induced atmospheric circular cell motion. The “Hadley”; up from zero latitude low pressure equator reaching upward velocity near 100 MPH at 3-4 km and continuing to 18 km on the sun-side of the planet. Higher altitude poleward motion with much greater volume but much lower velocity ensues. Near 30° latitude the whole thing continually collapses due to gravitational compression force, determined to maintain near constant surface pressure, else leaks by volatiles. 🙂 The return path for airmass from high surface pressure 30&deg latitude to the low surface pressure equator is known as surface ‘trade’ winds!
    The ‘Polar’ cell is similarly induced mechanically not thermally! Radially outward (from Earth’s rotational axis) near 60° latitude. Such airmass motion reaches upward velocity near 30 MPH at 2 km altitude. At altitude poleward velocity increases as atmospheric volume greatly decreases to near zero at the spin axis. Down again near the poles with the meteorological, again meant to confuse and misdirect, word ‘vorticity’.
    For some real clue as to possible temporary reduction of southern hemisphere surface pressure, go back to the JoNova site and read the postings of Ian Wilson, and Norm Page. To really blow your mind do the ‘Why Phi’ series at Tallbloke!
    BTW to understand that ‘tweener’ Ferrel cell STUFF, takes much higher priced Scotch or dope than I can afford!

    erl happ says: May 12, 2016 at 8:55 pm
    “Will, why is surface pressure so low on the margins of Antarctica as seen here:”

    Compressible fluid dynamics and continuum mechanics ‘require’ minimum angular accelerations of the fluid itself! This results in the streamlines always present in atmospheric mass motion. This inertial mass momentum, always results in a higher pressure in the direction of airmass motion, and a lower pressure aft! Even ships motion in incompressible fluid does the same thing. The important thing to remember is that airmass motion remains isentroptc! Please please do not return with the truly obscene phrase “Geostrophic wind”! Also known as farts!

    Like

  9. Will,
    Others would answer in this way: http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ao/introduction.html

    But these people, like you, freely admit that they have no explanation for this phenomenon of loss of atmospheric mass over Antarctica over the last 70 years. They have a very similar mental construct of the atmosphere to your own. Like you, they freely admit they have no idea as to the cause of the phenomenon.

    We all have different stories, some more plausible than others. I put forward a coherent argument that is based on observation of the manner in which the planet warms and the structure of the atmosphere, its movements and the density of the air as it varies with temperature. My story explains a lot of peculiar stuff. Your story is based on the notion that the atmosphere is free of external influences and is somehow energised by heating in the tropics. You need to have a much closer look at what is happening at the poles. In the process you have to work out for yourself what a ‘sudden stratospheric warming’ actually is and the role, if any, of so called planetary waves.

    To get to grips with what is happening at the surface of the globe according to hemisphere and latitude you have to do your homework. This is a start:
    https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/01/13/7-surface-temperature-evolves-differently-according-to-latitude/
    https://reality348.wordpress.com/2016/01/15/8-volatility-in-temperature/

    Like

    1. “We all have different stories, some more plausible than others. I put forward a coherent argument that is based on observation of the manner in which the planet warms and the structure of the atmosphere, its movements and the density of the air as it varies with temperature. My story explains a lot of peculiar stuff. Your story is based on the notion that the atmosphere is free of external influences and is somehow energised by heating in the tropics.”

      You make claims of “my story” My limited analysis so far makes no claim of any heating or thermal effect whatsoever! There do seem to be external effects created by the position of every other massive body in this Solar system, effective analysis of such is unlikely prior to the disolution of this planitary system. All you seem to do is some attempt to create superstition and mistrust of any learning of Earth’s atmosphere.
      My analysis is limited to my own measurement of EMR flux generation and transmission within this atmosphere, and my personal interest in the very careful work of computerized fluid dynamics at Cal Tech to the extent of physically reproducing the computer results. Spherical rotation effects in static atmosphere is complete. non uniform insolation is underway. Physical reproduction of the gravitational compression of external compressible fluid is unlikely, except with detailed measurment upon the only availible Earth we have!

      ” You need to have a much closer look at what is happening at the poles. In the process you have to work out for yourself what a ‘sudden stratospheric warming’ actually is and the role, if any, of so called planetary waves.”
      Not at al!! I need not have anything at all to do at all with your fantasy!
      The only sane response to Climageddon is “I do not know, nor does any other”

      Like

  10. Will,
    You will find that between 50° north and south latitude surface air temperature rises with surface atmospheric pressure. Surface pressure rises in the middle and low latitudes when atmospheric mass moves from the high latitudes to these mid and low latitudes.

    So, you need an explanation as to what causes the movement of atmospheric mass from high to mid latitudes in the middle of winter when the sun does not shine.

    Like

    1. “Will, You will find that between 50° north and south latitude surface air temperature rises with surface atmospheric pressure. Surface pressure rises in the middle and low latitudes when atmospheric mass moves from the high latitudes to these mid and low latitudes.”

      Have you any any physical evidence that what you claim may ever be correct? I maintain that sea level surface pressure of this Earth remains at 101325 Pascals ±34 Pascals; except for local regions of tornadoes and cyclones. Suchn demands that columnar atmospheric mass remain near 101325/(PI x 9.8N/Kg) in Kg/m^2 for all latitude, longitude locations. Only the altitude to 50 Pa varies and the the highest altitude for that pressure remains near the vector directed toward the Sun. Earth’s atmosphere is extremely active. but such modulation is much less than daily variance from this attractor!

      “So, you need an explanation as to what causes the movement of atmospheric mass from high to mid latitudes in the middle of winter when the sun does not shine.”

      I read your claim but find no evidence for such a claim. I detect a great misrepresentation of this Earth’s atmospheric geometry on your part. There is evidence in bi-annual lunar tidal atmospheric latitudinal shifting at high altitudes, but such is very poorly documented. This remains conjecture only.
      You still have not responded to my repeted request to your estimate of Earth atmospheric mass and why it is that amount! Now you demand that “I need an explanation for your superstition that such mass moves. Why such a demand?

      Like

    1. erl happ says: May 13, 2016 at 9:07 pm

      “Will, You can do some work for yourself. Here is the site. Down load the data and check the relationship between surface pressure and temperature for yourself:”

      That is neat Erl!
      You now want me to do “some work for yourself”, looking at inane reanalysis adjustments to questionable computer output from “the earth resources systems laboratory” of NOAA and UCAR/NCAR! Do you realise that these are the very same folk that blessed you with the CAGW crap in the first place? The very same folk that for 35 years now have clearly demonstrated that they have absolutely no clue of anything having to do with understanding of this planet, its atmosphere, or its oceans.
      You claim that a relationship between surface pressure and temperature has some meaning to you! But you refuse to give even a hint of what this may mean to YOU, except to wave arms and exclaim that polar stratospheric O3 controls that relationship! Then you expect others to accept and agree with your nonsense. It is exactly those that are convinced of their own knowledge that are ripe for picking by these accomplished scammers. The relationship between relative humidity and number of bugs on underside of leaf has much more significance!

      Like

      1. Will, Perhaps you will be interested in this: http://euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/
        Javier says this in relation to the query about how matters solar translate to changes in surface temperature at the surface of the Earth:
        The climatic effect is also probably not due to changes in radiation reaching the surface, as we know they are very small. More reasonable hypotheses are those that propose an atmospheric effect that probably propagates from the stratosphere downwards to the troposphere. The energy for climate and weather manifestations is mainly provided by the poleward heat transport, that is due to more energy entering the Earth in the tropical areas that can leave, so the surplus is transported towards the poles where more energy is leaving the Earth than entering. The intensity of the poleward heat transport depends on the latitudinal thermal gradient (LTG). LTG is more intense during cold periods and less intense during warm periods for obvious reasons. And this is why predictions about weather extremes fail miserably, as with the warming LTG decreases and the weather becomes tamer, not wilder. About two thirds of the poleward heat transport are moved by the atmosphere, and the rest by the global oceanic currents. LTG also determines the position and extension of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) on which the intensity of the monsoon depends. Recent research has shown that tropical stratosphere temperatures depend on solar activity (Gray et al., 2010), and winter climate in the Northern Hemisphere correlates to those changes (Ineson et al., 2011; Gray et al., 2013). An atmospheric top down effect of solar variability has been proposed.

        Do you see the similarities to what I propose here? Why don’t you go tell him he has it all wrong? You don’t want to lift a finger to justify what you say….then, what you write is just blather. Go blather on somewhere else.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s