Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
149 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ireneusz Palmowski
October 1, 2022 9:18 am
There is no end in sight for La Niña.
Jim
October 1, 2022 9:56 am
It seems to me the natural cause of climate change (on the order of decades) is apparent … do not look to the sun. Lunar cycles and associated changes in the tides and therefore ocean currents may be responsible for a far greater effect. Large El Ninos occurred in 1982, 1998 and 2016. 18 years apart. Which happens to be the lunar “nodal precession” cycle. Cursory examination of the UAH data reveals that there is a strong cycle evident with amplitude of +-0.3 deg C and period of 3 to 4 years. This is the ENSO cycle (?). There is also a lunar cycle of 33 years, too long a cycle to be evident with UAH data.
You can do a linear regression analysis of the data and get satisfactory results, but the R2 is low. A step function is a better fit, with step change of 0.25 deg C in 1998 and 2016. Hence “the Great Pause”. Why? CO2 must play a role in recent climate but I suspect a better answer can be had in the study of moon periodicity and its influence on the tides and hence ocean circulation. Once detrending method is selected, one can analyze the UAH data with Fourier analysis. But the mystery is not the 3 year and 18-year ENSO cycles but the step changes. This may be the 33-year lunar cycle. Just a thought. If we aren’t accounting for tidal effect on short-term small scale climate change, I think we’re missing somesthing.
roaddog
October 1, 2022 9:59 am
NO CO2 Was Emitted in the production of this pavement.
The Biden Administration’s unprecedented battle to fight climate change begins with … asphalt. “We’re from the government and we’re here to pave.”
I would bet my house that Ian was no longer a cat. 4 hurricane with 150 mph winds at landfall and within an hour, was a cat. 1 or less hurricane.
All the surface observations scream that out loud and clear. Granted, there are reasons for Irma to stay stronger, longer but the NHC was keeping Ian much stronger, much longer than the surface observations supported.
With Irma, the disparity between NHC reports and land based instrumentation was consistent with all the other hurricanes that I’ve followed.
With Ian, there was a complete detachment from previous relationships of NHC reported winds and winds measured by many dozens of anemometers on the ground at that time.
I followed this closely and in amazement, hour by hour thru 6 hours after landfall.
I welcome comments. I have a good idea why this happened but will not state it until others comment and every possibility has been exhausted.
Please focus, not just on the reasons why the NHC will always have higher winds than land instruments………I totally get that and most of the reasons.
I’ve followed hurricanes for 4 decades.
But especially, why THIS TIME more than any other by an extremely wide margin, that difference was double any other time that I recall.
Thanks,
Mike
I noticed the disparity between the land based instruments and the NHC reporting a long time ago and so began to watch closely and kept a notebook handy for notes and lots of open tabs on mu computer. After Irene and Sandy I was certain not to believe anything put out by NOAA or NHC. They are a shame and disgrace. It goes without saying for the mainstream media. We have had over 30 years of false reporting. Fake news has turned old and grey but now it has been revealed for what it is and has its very own meme.
Can anyone explain the molecular mechanism behind the lapse rate, or refer to a not-completely-math-filled explanation that might involve the equipartition theorem? That is, it’s said that molecules do ‘work’ against gravity when air rises and in this way kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy as parcels become less dense (i.e., rise.) However, I’d like to know exactly what happens on a molecular level if anyone knows.
According to independent calculations by Maxwell and Boltzmann, gravity does not alter the molecular velocity distribution function (vide infra). At equilibrium, temperature remains uniform and entropy a maximum. According to current climate science models, entropy density is uniform and temperature decreases with altitude. In the former case, non-zero lapse rates imply non-equilibria dependent on energy flux magnitudes. Your choice is between the math or the intuition.
Let’s put this another way. ” …. non-zero lapse rates imply non-equilibria dependent on energy flux magnitudes.” OK, so when air warms up with decrease in altitude, where is this energy flux coming from, exactly? From the radiation of CO2 and water vapor, to the tune of 6.5C/km?
So then CO2 and water vapor have enough energy to warm the atmosphere 6.5C/km as the air descends, is that it? Or in (mostly) dry air, as in deserts: is it just CO2 that has the energy to increase heating of the air beyond the environmental lapse rate, to the dry lapse rate? So that without the help of water vapor CO2’s energy increases?
I’d really like to hear this explained. I’d like to know where this energy flux is coming from.
When air cools with altitude, where is this energy flux going? ” … entropy density is uniform and temperature decreases with altitude.” I don’t think that sentence says anything but what’s already obvious. By what molecular mechanism does temperature decrease with altitude? Is translational energy lost and converted to gravitational potential energy? And yet gravity is doing nothing, it’s a non-actor, it’s already done and nothing is acting now? If I jump off a roof I’ll float?
Don,
Trenberth’s classic cartoon depicts the sources and sinks of energy fluxes. The atmosphere’s temperature drops with altitude because that’s the direction energy flows. Were there no greenhouse gases, surface radiation passes to outer space unimpeded. With such gases, radiation is absorbed, warming the atmosphere, preferentially in regions of highest density (shortest path length), until escaping the troposphere with a thermal gradient. When this gradient exceeds a critical value (the adiabatic lapse rate), stable convective cells may form, enhancing an energy flux.
A key question, what would the thermal gradient be were the atmosphere pure nitrogen? If equilibrium is an isentropic state, 9.4K/km (g/Cp). If an isothermal state, 0.0 K/km. The former implies a uniform entropy density (dS/dz=0). The latter, a maximum of the total entropy given by integration of dS over z. Maxwell and Boltzmann assert the latter, climate science chooses the former. For the isentropic state, the internal energy of a differential volume element is independent of its position. This doesn’t imply transitions between positions at finite rates are free from a viscous dissipation of energy.
Climate science illustrates a classic case of the perils of intuitive reasoning. Boltzmann: “The effect of the external forces consists merely in the fact that the density in the gas changes from place to place in a manner which is already known from hydrostatics.” Ergo, if temperature changes from place to place, density must determine temperature. But, molecular velocities for a kilogram of an ideal gas are independent of density and temperature is a function of these velocities. To escape this paradox, one needs abandon notions of equilibria and consider the dissipation of free energy.
Stephen A Heins
October 1, 2022 11:12 am
There are several problems with ESGs: First and foremost are the fiduciary responsibility to investors and the inability to measure and verify emission reductions in real time. In short, no accounting protocol, no international standards, and greenwashing/fraud.
Sorry about the confusion with Richard & David. Richard a great actor, David latterly a mere narrator.
Please WATTSUPWTAT try to answer my question. I feel it could be a game changer,
with REAL science!
He’s quick, they haven’t finished with the covid and monkeypox fear yet and he’s starting on cholera fear.
Dennis
October 1, 2022 7:32 pm
I drove close to 500 kilometres yesterday mostly on a major motorway and towing a caravan, I overtook three EVs that were being driven at about 80 kilometres an hour in the 110 speed limited areas.
I was thinking about the travelling time for the EVs and then a long wait for recharging, and with no trailer to further reduce to about one-third of theoretical range for the average towing range.
No doubt about it, if EV was affordable for most drivers they really are town and city vehicles.
Charles
October 2, 2022 6:14 am
I’m curious about how any windmill farms and solar power plants held up that were in the direct path of Hurricane Ian. Haven’t seen a single word about this in the media as yet. Does anyone have the data?
Chevron is selling its global headquarters in California as it continues to move its operations and employees to Texas, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The oil giant sold 92 acres of offices in San Ramon as its workers continue to relocate to its Houston campus, where it has three times the number of employees that California has, according to the WSJ
There is no end in sight for La Niña.
It seems to me the natural cause of climate change (on the order of decades) is apparent … do not look to the sun. Lunar cycles and associated changes in the tides and therefore ocean currents may be responsible for a far greater effect. Large El Ninos occurred in 1982, 1998 and 2016. 18 years apart. Which happens to be the lunar “nodal precession” cycle. Cursory examination of the UAH data reveals that there is a strong cycle evident with amplitude of +-0.3 deg C and period of 3 to 4 years. This is the ENSO cycle (?). There is also a lunar cycle of 33 years, too long a cycle to be evident with UAH data.
You can do a linear regression analysis of the data and get satisfactory results, but the R2 is low. A step function is a better fit, with step change of 0.25 deg C in 1998 and 2016. Hence “the Great Pause”. Why? CO2 must play a role in recent climate but I suspect a better answer can be had in the study of moon periodicity and its influence on the tides and hence ocean circulation. Once detrending method is selected, one can analyze the UAH data with Fourier analysis. But the mystery is not the 3 year and 18-year ENSO cycles but the step changes. This may be the 33-year lunar cycle. Just a thought. If we aren’t accounting for tidal effect on short-term small scale climate change, I think we’re missing somesthing.
NO CO2 Was Emitted in the production of this pavement.
The Biden Administration’s unprecedented battle to fight climate change begins with … asphalt. “We’re from the government and we’re here to pave.”
Majority of new federal climate funds in Pennsylvania going to repave parking lots | Just The News
“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot…”
I would bet my house that Ian was no longer a cat. 4 hurricane with 150 mph winds at landfall and within an hour, was a cat. 1 or less hurricane.
All the surface observations scream that out loud and clear. Granted, there are reasons for Irma to stay stronger, longer but the NHC was keeping Ian much stronger, much longer than the surface observations supported.
With Irma, the disparity between NHC reports and land based instrumentation was consistent with all the other hurricanes that I’ve followed.
With Ian, there was a complete detachment from previous relationships of NHC reported winds and winds measured by many dozens of anemometers on the ground at that time.
I followed this closely and in amazement, hour by hour thru 6 hours after landfall.
I welcome comments. I have a good idea why this happened but will not state it until others comment and every possibility has been exhausted.
Please focus, not just on the reasons why the NHC will always have higher winds than land instruments………I totally get that and most of the reasons.
I’ve followed hurricanes for 4 decades.
But especially, why THIS TIME more than any other by an extremely wide margin, that difference was double any other time that I recall.
Thanks,
Mike
Comparison of Ian-2022 to Irma-2017
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89366/
I noticed the disparity between the land based instruments and the NHC reporting a long time ago and so began to watch closely and kept a notebook handy for notes and lots of open tabs on mu computer. After Irene and Sandy I was certain not to believe anything put out by NOAA or NHC. They are a shame and disgrace. It goes without saying for the mainstream media. We have had over 30 years of false reporting. Fake news has turned old and grey but now it has been revealed for what it is and has its very own meme.
Thanks eyesonu,
This time was different than other
Winds speeds from the get go were 30-50 mph and it stayed that way all evening..
q
Ian’s death toll up to 79/Extreme Storm Surge
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/89399/
Good link Mike.
Can anyone explain the molecular mechanism behind the lapse rate, or refer to a not-completely-math-filled explanation that might involve the equipartition theorem? That is, it’s said that molecules do ‘work’ against gravity when air rises and in this way kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential energy as parcels become less dense (i.e., rise.) However, I’d like to know exactly what happens on a molecular level if anyone knows.
Thanks in advance.
According to independent calculations by Maxwell and Boltzmann, gravity does not alter the molecular velocity distribution function (vide infra). At equilibrium, temperature remains uniform and entropy a maximum. According to current climate science models, entropy density is uniform and temperature decreases with altitude. In the former case, non-zero lapse rates imply non-equilibria dependent on energy flux magnitudes. Your choice is between the math or the intuition.
“… non-zero lapse rates imply non-equilibria dependent on energy flux magnitudes.”
So I suppose the question would be, where do those energy flux magnitudes come from?
Let’s put this another way. ” …. non-zero lapse rates imply non-equilibria dependent on energy flux magnitudes.” OK, so when air warms up with decrease in altitude, where is this energy flux coming from, exactly? From the radiation of CO2 and water vapor, to the tune of 6.5C/km?
So then CO2 and water vapor have enough energy to warm the atmosphere 6.5C/km as the air descends, is that it? Or in (mostly) dry air, as in deserts: is it just CO2 that has the energy to increase heating of the air beyond the environmental lapse rate, to the dry lapse rate? So that without the help of water vapor CO2’s energy increases?
I’d really like to hear this explained. I’d like to know where this energy flux is coming from.
When air cools with altitude, where is this energy flux going? ” … entropy density is uniform and temperature decreases with altitude.” I don’t think that sentence says anything but what’s already obvious. By what molecular mechanism does temperature decrease with altitude? Is translational energy lost and converted to gravitational potential energy? And yet gravity is doing nothing, it’s a non-actor, it’s already done and nothing is acting now? If I jump off a roof I’ll float?
Don,
Trenberth’s classic cartoon depicts the sources and sinks of energy fluxes. The atmosphere’s temperature drops with altitude because that’s the direction energy flows. Were there no greenhouse gases, surface radiation passes to outer space unimpeded. With such gases, radiation is absorbed, warming the atmosphere, preferentially in regions of highest density (shortest path length), until escaping the troposphere with a thermal gradient. When this gradient exceeds a critical value (the adiabatic lapse rate), stable convective cells may form, enhancing an energy flux.
A key question, what would the thermal gradient be were the atmosphere pure nitrogen? If equilibrium is an isentropic state, 9.4K/km (g/Cp). If an isothermal state, 0.0 K/km. The former implies a uniform entropy density (dS/dz=0). The latter, a maximum of the total entropy given by integration of dS over z. Maxwell and Boltzmann assert the latter, climate science chooses the former. For the isentropic state, the internal energy of a differential volume element is independent of its position. This doesn’t imply transitions between positions at finite rates are free from a viscous dissipation of energy.
Climate science illustrates a classic case of the perils of intuitive reasoning. Boltzmann: “The effect of the external forces consists merely in the fact that the density in the gas changes from place to place in a manner which is already known from hydrostatics.” Ergo, if temperature changes from place to place, density must determine temperature. But, molecular velocities for a kilogram of an ideal gas are independent of density and temperature is a function of these velocities. To escape this paradox, one needs abandon notions of equilibria and consider the dissipation of free energy.
There are several problems with ESGs: First and foremost are the fiduciary responsibility to investors and the inability to measure and verify emission reductions in real time. In short, no accounting protocol, no international standards, and greenwashing/fraud.
Sergueï Jirnov (Сергей Олегович Жирнов) is cancelled on French news channel LCI, not because he is a clueless buffoon (who even promoted the Chernobyl dirt Russian soldiers irradiation hoax) but for anti-Putin homophobic speech:
https://www.ozap.com/actu/-poutine-est-une-fiotte-apres-un-nouveau-derapage-lci-se-separe-de-son-expert-serguei-jirnov/621824
The hoax:
Radiation Sickness Affecting Russian Soldiers at Chernobyl
Sorry about the confusion with Richard & David. Richard a great actor, David latterly a mere narrator.
Please WATTSUPWTAT try to answer my question. I feel it could be a game changer,
with REAL science!
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/climate-change-and-the-resolutely-blind-eye/
Peter Gleick is blaming cholera on “climate”:
“Cholera Surging Globally as #Climate Change Intensifies”
https://nitter.net/PeterGleick/status/1576242356894191618#m
He’s quick, they haven’t finished with the covid and monkeypox fear yet and he’s starting on cholera fear.
I drove close to 500 kilometres yesterday mostly on a major motorway and towing a caravan, I overtook three EVs that were being driven at about 80 kilometres an hour in the 110 speed limited areas.
I was thinking about the travelling time for the EVs and then a long wait for recharging, and with no trailer to further reduce to about one-third of theoretical range for the average towing range.
No doubt about it, if EV was affordable for most drivers they really are town and city vehicles.
I’m curious about how any windmill farms and solar power plants held up that were in the direct path of Hurricane Ian. Haven’t seen a single word about this in the media as yet. Does anyone have the data?
Any thoughts here on who sabotaged the Nord Stream Pipeline?
A few but they occur somewhat earlier in the posts than here.
Is there any way to quantify this change: https://www.sciencealert.com/we-may-finally-know-why-oceans-in-the-southern-hemisphere-are-getting-so-warmThe whole basis for the article seems to be all change is bad and we’re just making it worse.
Chevron is selling its global headquarters in California as it continues to move its operations and employees to Texas, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. The oil giant sold 92 acres of offices in San Ramon as its workers continue to relocate to its Houston campus, where it has three times the number of employees that California has, according to the WSJ