It has been awhile since we have had one. Feel free to comment on any topic within our normal guidelines.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It has been awhile since we have had one. Feel free to comment on any topic within our normal guidelines.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All Brexiters fall under the proverbial No. 11 bus
correction No.9 bus
https://youtu.be/JgF_pz9WRIU
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-disapproves-decision-charge-clinton-emails-poll/story?id=40445344
Majority Disapproves of Decision Not to Charge Clinton on Emails (POLL)
“A majority of Americans [56%] disapproves of the FBI’s recommendation not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime over her handling of email while secretary of state, and a similar number in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say the issue leaves them worried about how she’d handle her responsibilities as president if elected.
Most also say the email controversy won’t affect their vote choice in the presidential election. But more say it leaves them less rather than more likely to support Clinton, 28 percent vs. 10 percent.”
I can’t imagine any sane, knowledgeable person voting for Hillary Clinton. The “worst choice evah!” (after Obama)
Sad that only 56% of people disapproved of her antics.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/why-hillary-needed-a-private-email-server/?cat_orig=politics
Why Hillary needed a private email server
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey on his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while secretary of state, but the congressmen never truly got to the bottom of Clinton’s email scandal, according to the author of an explosive new book on the Clintons. . .
“By keeping all her emails on a private server, Hillary and her trusted operatives in the State Department – Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills – could play like an orchestra Hillary’s schedule, orchestrating her policy decisions for maximum gain – provided Bill Clinton and top officials at the Clinton Foundation and Teneo had inside access to classified top secret national security information sure to pass through Hillary’s email traffic.”. . .
All of this adds up to two crimes, in Corsi’s estimation.
“The crime was not only corruption – the selling of ‘official acts’ as secretary of state for personal gain obtained via ‘donations’ to the Clinton Foundation – the crime was also inurement – operating a 501(c) tax-favored charity for personal gain, at the same time the politicized IRS denied tax-favored status to conservative, tea-party-affiliated groups,” Corsi said.”
Makes sense to me. If not for the Benghazi terrorist attack, we would know nothing about Hillary and Bill’s little scam.
For all us spaceweather, ah.. hobbyists, this is a good,
read related to a study done by ESA’s CLUSTER satellite mission.
The curious case of Earth’s leaking atmosphere
July 8, 2016
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2016/2-thecuriousca.jpg
“”””….Overall, about 1 kg of material is escaping our atmosphere every second, amounting to almost 90 tonnes per day. Singling out just cold ions (light hydrogen ions, which require less energy to escape and thus possess a lower energy in the magnetosphere), the escape mass totals thousands of tonnes per year….””””
“””””…..Another recent Cluster study compared the two main atmospheric escape mechanisms Earth experiences – sporadic plumes emanating through the plasmasphere, and the steady leakage of Earth’s atmosphere from the ionosphere – to see how they might contribute to the population of cold ions residing at the dayside magnetopause (the magnetosphere-solar wind boundary nearest the Sun).
Both escape processes appear to depend in different ways on the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF), the solar magnetic field that is carried out into the Solar System by the solar wind. This field moves through space in a spiralling pattern due to the rotation of the Sun, like water released from a lawn sprinkler. Depending on how the IMF is aligned, it can effectively cancel out part of Earth’s magnetic field at the magnetopause, linking up and merging with our field and allowing the solar wind to stream in.
Plumes seem to occur when the IMF is oriented southward (anti-parallel to Earth’s magnetic field, thus acting as mentioned above). Conversely, leaking outflows from the ionosphere occur during northward-oriented IMF. Both processes occur more strongly when the solar wind is either denser or travelling faster (thus exerting a higher dynamic pressure).………””””””
http://phys.org/news/2016-07-curious-case-earth-leaking-atmosphere.html
Note; my bold (s)
With respect to the above post.
hmmm….
Northward IMF = up and out
Southward IMF = down and in
No, this couldn’t be…could it?
That looks interesting.
Any luck on fixing or updating your reference pages with more current data, images and charts? Many of them seem to be months behind……
Are surface winds around the globe running slightly stronger than average as compared to recent years? That thought came to mind earlier this year, when using earthnullschool. I would swear that the surface winds have increased this year, if my memory is right.
goldminor July 11, 2016 at 10:45 am
………. when using earthnullschool…………..
————————————————————
Earthnullschool, one of the coolest tools to come along.
Looking towards the equatorial regions, you can see some eddys or counter clockwise cyclones?, where air coming from the northern hemisphere is being pulled down by the powerful Southern Polar Vortex into itself.
Huge long narrow equatorial band stretching from Japan to the W. coast of Africa has steady pull into S. Polar Vortex.
The S. Polar Vortex has some speeds in excess of 227mph. wow
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/equirectangular=133.07,-0.60,300/loc=167.454,-56.422
Click Earth>Mode Air>Height 10 hPa>Overlay Wind>Projection Orthographic
Very cool! Thanks!
I haven’t gone looking for this, but this tool be a good place to start.
The step in temp after the 97-98 El Nino comes from a change in climate sensitivity for the surface stations in the N20 to N30 latitude band, the CS for this band jumps.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
oops Projection is equirerectangular
Still an interesting view looking from that perspective. There has certainly been a change in the global patterns from earlier this year as compared to the last several years. I mainly pay attention to surface winds.
The south facing wall of my semi-hypothetical house holds about 300 sq ft of double paned glass. The sun shines through adding energy to the various surfaces and objects which then increase in temperature per their specific heat capacity, wood floors, furniture, tile, brick fire place, Trombe wall, etc. This also warms the air. Inside the house it is 70 F, outside 30 F, a 40 F dT. Thermal equilibrium is determined by Q/A = U * dT. U is thermal conductivity aka 1/R(esistance). It’s the same R factor printed all over that insulation at HD.
If I add insulation to the house, decreasing conductivity, and do not turn down the heat input/sun/furnace the house is going to get hot per Q/A = U * dT. U went down, Q/A constant, dT must increase. If I reduce the solar energy input with drapes, i.e. albedo, and Q/A goes down, U stays constant, dT must decrease, i.e. the house cools off. (energy is a thermal property, heat is a thermal process, energy in motion from hot to cold)
Let’s pretend that 240 W/m^2 enter the bottom of the troposphere at 15 C, 288 k, and are conducted through to the tropopause at -80 C, 193 K. dT = 95 C (NOT K. Celsius is the increment, K is the absolute.) U, thermal conductivity, for the troposphere = 240 / 95 = 2.53. (Conduction and convection depend on molecules which after about 30 km get few and far between.)
Now suppose albedo increases and only 235 W/m^2 makes it to the atmosphere/surface, what happens to dT? 235 / 2.53 = 92.9 F. ToT T didn’t change so surface T goes down 2.1 C. Cooler means more clouds, snow, ice more albedo more cooling a positive feedback loop that tips the earth into an ice age. The 0.04% GHGs have zero impact on U, thermal conductivity.
Both ACS tool kit and Spencer Weart don’t like the greenhouse analogy. An ordinary house analogy works just fine.
There is a box 50’ by 50’ by 8’ with R-36 insulation. I want 70 F inside when it’s 30 F outside. What does the furnace have to deliver? Q = 1/36 * 6,600 * 40 = 7,333 Btu/h.
So I increase the insulation to R-54 and do not turn down the heat. 7,333 * 54 / 6,600 = 60. The temperature inside the house will rise to 90 F.
Suppose the kids leave the back door open and 25% of the heat leaves the building, think albedo. Now only 5,500 Btu/h remains to heat the space (atmosphere). 5,500 * 36 / 6,600 = 30. The temperature in the house falls to 60 F.
I think “dark matter” is simply bureaucratic inertia on a cosmic scale.
[So, “Dark Matter Lives!” ? .mod]
Just received a copy of Sky Dragons and after a quick skim and based on comments to my R&C posting above have decided that the geometry of the sun, earth, and TSI, total solar irradiance, etc. are not well understood, so I’m offering up my explanation.
From what I have found (which goes for all of this.) the surface temperature of the sun was determined by using a hot wire comparison technique commonly used in foundries. I have found several different values, 5,500 C, 5770 C, and 5,800 C. Based on these values an S-B BB radiation, e.g. x,xxx E 07 W/m^2, can be determined. This is multiplied times the cross-sectional area of the sun to get total watts produced by the sun. Spreading this across a spherical surface would divide it by 4. (A sphere of r has 4 times the area as a disc of r.) This power flux (Watt is power, not energy.) decreases with distance. When this total amount is distributed across a disc (or sphere) at the distance to earth the result is about x,xxx W/m^2.
The S-B ideal BB results are: 5,770 C / 6,043 K, ε = 1.0, 1,702 disc or 425.5 spherical W/m^2.
This exceeds the generally accepted value of 1,328 disc or 342 spherical W/m^2.
The S-B grey body results are: 5,770 C / 6,043 K, ε = .804, 1,368 disc or 342 spherical W/m^2.
There are no oblique rays to the sphere as shown in so many diagrams. The incoming TSI vectors are perpendicular to either the disc or spherical surfaces.
This is all a calculation, i.e. model, and if someone could confirm TSI with real measurements that would be most helpful.
Of course this does not address day/night or seasons and is actually not a true “energy” or “heat” balance.
Building a model that deals in Btu or kJ / h with day and night considered would be a piece of work and interesting. If anybody has seen such a balance please share a link.
Would be happy to attach the Excel sheet if given a path.
I’m working on that, but some of it is only in the data tables, and not in graph form. This is a good synopsis
here
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/
and here
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/evidence-against-warming-from-carbon-dioxide/
These don’t have entropy in them, I’ve been working on that code, but it’s done, though I might do some more trying to speed it up.
In the last global run, for the 75.6 million station records in the report,
Average solar forcing was 3,598 Whr/m2/day
Which cause temps to go up 17.84F
The entropy lost from max temp to min temp over night is 10.24kJ/kg (this is the co2 killer)
Forcing from solar efficiency deltaT/deltaF = 2.45 E-05
I’m going to add this to the end of this old open thread hoping only those interested in such will find and comment on it. I’ll check back.
TSI – Total Solar Insolation.
This is the amount/rate of energy/power flux that the sun delivers to the earth. Most atmospheric “heat” / power flux balance graphics show a value of about 340 W/m^2. These are not, strictly speaking, “heat” balances.
A watt is a power unit, energy over time, i.e. 3.41 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. Delivered over an area creates a flux. These graphics are simple models that do not take into account the differences between night and day nor seasons. The 340 W/m^2 arrives perpendicular to the entire ToA spherical surface area. One source’s ToA measurement of TSI is 1,368 W/m^2 perpendicular to a plane cutting the incoming radiation. NASA defines ToA as 100 km, average earth diameter is 12,742 km + 2 * 100 km equals a circular cross sectional area of 5.262 E14 m^2 times TSI equals 7.198 E17 W. Spreading this power in a perpendicular manner over the entire ToA spherical area equals 342 W/m^2. Got it?
Let’s start at the very beginning, a very good place to start (plagiarizing “Sound of Music”) which is, of course, the sun.
Luminosity is a measure of an object’s radiative power. It is used extensively in astronomy. Luminosity is a measure of the object’s temperature. The sun’s luminosity is about 3.846E26 W. For these calculations the value of the sun’s temperature will be 5,772 K. S-B equation will be Q/A = σ * ε * T^4. The S-B BB radiation for 5,772 K is 6.293E7 W/m^2. Multiplying this BB radiation times the spherical surface of the sun, 6.087E18 m^2, equals 3.931E26 W, within 2.2%. Check! Got it? Now which came first, the luminosity or the temperature or the power flux or is this a circular calculation?
This radiation spreads out from the sun as a sphere until it reaches the earth at a distance of 1.46E11 m, orbital spherical area at this distance is 2.679E23 m^2. Dividing the luminosity by this area equals a TSI of 1,430 W/m^2. This is greater than the measured value of 1,368 W/m^2. Why? An emissivity of about .95. Emissivity is measured divided by theoretical.
The orbital sphere intersects the earth in an arc, the diameter of the earth forms a chord. Applying the arc/chord/radius geometric formulas, h, the distance between the center of the chord and the center of the arc equals 573 m. The chord and arc are essentially the same length, 2.59E7 m so the incoming solar radiation is, for all intents and purposes, perpendicular to the circular cross sectional area of the earth.
When the total radiation striking the circular cross section is spread across the ToA spherical area, perpendicular to that surface, the result is 342 W/m^2.
But the values used in the theoretical calculations above are subject to natural variations and uncertainties. Let’s look at two critical values: orbital diameter and temperature.
The orbit is not circular, it varies from aphelion (1.52E18 km) to perihelion (1.47E18km) or +/- 1.7%, or TSI +/- 5.7 W/m^2.
One source listed a solar temperature of 5,750 K with an uncertainty of +/- 50 C. (K is absolute, C is the increment). The resulting S-B BB radiation for these temperatures is +/- 3.5% or TSI +/- 12 W/m^2.
So the range of natural orbital variability and temperature uncertainty deliver an overall uncertainty in TSI of +/- 17.5 W/m^2, a total uncertainty band of 35 W/m^2.
IPCC AR5 says that the radiative forcing due to CO2’s 0.5% fluctuation in the global carbon balance was about 2 W/m^2. IPCC AR5’s worst, worst, worst, worst case scenario, RCP 8.5 W/m^2, 936 ppm CO2, has ice caps melting and multi meters of sea levels rising over 500 years. 8.5 W/m^2 is 24% of the uncertainty band.
Considering the magnitude of the natural variations and uncertainties noted above, CO2’s contribution seems rather trivial. And there are other uncertainties and variabilities that were not considered, e.g. variations in the sun’s diameter/spherical area which impact luminosity and ultimately TSI.