For the first time in more than 100 years, no hurricanes formed in the Atlantic Ocean from the start of hurricane season through September. This is amazing, and great news for people who live in Hurricane Alley in the US, but this is not what the climate alarmists promised us. Humans would be punished for creating global warming with an endless parade of larger, stronger, and deadlier storms. So what happened? We have a couple of meteorologists to explain.
On Episode 219 of The Climate Realism Show the Heartland Institute’s Sterling Burnett, Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely will also discuss some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including the end of quest to eliminate the internal combustion engine, a critical climate case going to the Supreme Court, and climate change putting humans at risk of more mosquito bites, bat attacks, and being mauled by bears.
Join us Friday at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook. Participate in the show by leaving your comments and questions in the chat.
PART I of II
The Canadian government website, Natural Resources Canada, scrubs the following admission that there is no such thing as “back radiation”:
“Of the incoming solar radiation that hits the boundary between the Earth’s atmosphere and outer space, about 30% is reflected back to space by atmospheric clouds and the Earth’s surface, 25% is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back to space, and 45% is absorbed by the surface of land and ocean (Figure 5).”
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/maps-tools-publications/satellite-elevation-air-photos/interactions-atmosphere
There it is, “25% is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back to space”.
The page scrubbed was updated 1/14/25, and Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine’s captures before that update were also scrubbed. Obviously, the Marxists within the Canadian government were aware of my citations of the incriminating admission that there is no such thing as “back radiation”, and took corrective action in suppressing the truth.
PART II of II
“Climate Change” models don’t take into account the Earth’s electric/magnetic [energy] fields!
“Back radiation”/”downwelling”, the foundation of “Climate Change”, is a known fraud thanks to the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
We start with a question:
Question to Google AI: where is radiation in e=mc2?
“AI Overview
In E=MC2, radiation is represented by the (energy), which is released when mass (M) is converted, as explained in this NSTA article and this PBS article. The formula shows that radiation, heat, or light emitted by a substance is equivalent to the mass lost.”
Got that? Energy is radiation, according to physics. Therefore radiation cannot move in the direction of lessened disorder/randomness after its interception and absorption in the atmosphere, radiation must follow the path of greater disorder/randomness in order to facilitate energy’s compliance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
“The second law – The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior.”
https://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html
Photons, electromagnetic radiation, have oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/725572/how-can-photons-have-an-electric-field-without-having-a-charge
The electric/magnetic fields of the atmosphere increases with a descending atmosphere, therefore when a photon is absorbed by a gas molecule in the atmosphere, after that photon is destroyed, a new, less energized, photon is emitted by the gas molecule, and the only direction the new molecule can spontaneously move towards is in the direction of the less ordered, more random, higher atmosphere, not downwards according to the Marxist-originated “back radiation” canard.
Good as far as it goes.
Thermodynamics concerns thermal energy. Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. E. Foote discovered this in the mid 1850s.
A photon is not a particle. Is it a defined mathematical quantum of energy. It cannot be destroyed.
Lastly, the quantum emission creates a spherical EM wave front. It is not unidirectionsl.
You are correct. There is no back radiation the way the Climate Imperialists use it.
“Thermodynamics concerns thermal energy. Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. “
You obviously didn’t digest the full meaning of my comment’s scientific quotes! The Second Law of Thermodynamics covers all systems, as the first quote directs our attention, where energy is light and heat(A):
“The second law – The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior.”
https://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html
“E. Foote discovered this in the mid 1850s.”
Physics has evolved since the 1850s, you know! Ever heard of A. Einstein? E=MC2? Ring any bells?
===================
(A) Question to Google AI: does the second law of thermodynamics apply to electromagnetic radiation?
“AI Overview
Yes, the second law of thermodynamics applies directly to electromagnetic radiation. [1]
How It Applies
This crap is as stupid, or more, so than the endless graph wars.
The laws of physics don’t require anything other than the particular attestation of the law itself, where in this case the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t exclude entropy for electromagnetic radiation, thereby identifying the Marxist co-option of our institutions, and their quest to implode the West’s economies via the “greenhouse gasses”/”back radiation” canards.
Small problem: you can see the less ordered, more random, higher atmosphere, but the molecule and its photon cannot. Also, beyond the higher atmosphere, which the photon will likely pass through, is a much more ordered region. So it seems reasonable for the photon to forego your easy option and to head downwards where it has seen a highly disordered location in an otherwise more ordered region, and where it should be able to bump into something (its only objective??).
The point is this: photons go in random directions because they cannot see where they are going. From the middle atmosphere, some go up, some go sideways, and some go down. The ones going down are outnumbered by the photons coming up from below. The rule is not that no photon can go in the “wrong” direction, it is about the net flow of photons
“Small problem: you can see the less ordered, more random, higher atmosphere, but the molecule and its photon cannot. “
Huh? What are you talking about?!
“Also, beyond the higher atmosphere, which the photon will likely pass through, is a much more ordered region.”
Again…huh? The universe is moving apart(!):
Question to Google AI: how fast is the universe moving apaart?
The universe expands at a rate of roughly 67 to 73 kilometers per second for every megaparsec (about 3.26 million light-years) of distance. [1, 2]
The Expansion Rate
You can’t really analyze it this way. As Planck explains in his Theory of Heat Radiation,
The Theory of Heat Radiation by Max Planck – Prabhat Prakashan. Kindle Edition.
You are mixing entropy and radiation together which isn’t exactly correct. I agree that downwelling radiation from CO2 is minimal. There isn’t enough mass to generate sufficient energy to heat the surface. And, whatever does reach the surface is immediately radiated away without raising the temperature of the surface due to entropy. That is, there is no heat transfer.
“You are mixing entropy and radiation together which isn’t exactly correct.”
Are you kidding us?!
Question to Google AI: does the second law of thermodynamics apply to electromagnetic radiation?
“AI Overview
Yes, the second law of thermodynamics applies directly to electromagnetic radiation. [1]
How It Applies
Why was the following comment deleted as SPAM?…
PART I of II
The Canadian government website, Natural Resources Canada, scrubs the following admission that there is no such thing as “back radiation”*:
“Of the incoming solar radiation that hits the boundary between the Earth’s atmosphere and outer space, about 30% is reflected back to space by atmospheric clouds and the Earth’s surface, 25% is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back to space, and 45% is absorbed by the surface of land and ocean (Figure 5).”
There it is, “25% is absorbed by the atmosphere and reradiated back to space”.
The page scrubbed was updated 1/14/25, and Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine’s captures before that update were also scrubbed. Obviously, the Marxists within the Canadian government were aware of my citations of the incriminating admission that there is no such thing as “back radiation”, and took corrective action in suppressing the truth.
PART II of II
“Climate Change” models don’t take into account the Earth’s electric/magnetic [energy] fields!
“Back radiation”/”downwelling”, the foundation of “Climate Change”, is a known fraud thanks to the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
We start with a question:
Question to Google AI: where is radiation in e=mc2?
“AI Overview
In E=MC2, radiation is represented by the (energy), which is released when mass (M) is converted, as explained in this NSTA article and this PBS article. The formula shows that radiation, heat, or light emitted by a substance is equivalent to the mass lost.”
Got that? Energy is radiation, according to physics. Therefore radiation cannot move in the direction of lessened disorder/randomness after its interception and absorption in the atmosphere, radiation must follow the path of greater disorder/randomness in order to facilitate energy’s compliance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
“The second law – The level of disorder in the universe is steadily increasing. Systems tend to move from ordered behavior to more random behavior.”
Google: bu edu Entropy and the second law
https://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Secondlaw.html
Photons, electromagnetic radiation, have oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
Google: physics stack exchange How can photons have an electric field without having a charge?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/725572/how-can-photons-have-an-electric-field-without-having-a-charge
The electric/magnetic fields of the atmosphere increases with a descending atmosphere, therefore when a photon is absorbed by a gas molecule in the atmosphere, after that photon is destroyed, a new, less energized, photon is emitted by the gas molecule, and the only direction the new molecule can spontaneously move towards is in the direction of the less ordered, more random, higher atmosphere, not downwards according to the Marxist-originated “back radiation” canard.
====================
* Google: Interactions with the Atmosphere ressources naturelles atmosphere
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/maps-tools-publications/satellite-elevation-air-photos/interactions-atmosphere
It is a very real question, one I have posed before, why the planetary magnetic fields are ignored by the Climate Imperialists.
Nice to know I have company.
It’s Climate Change wot done it. Another unintended consequence.
Another victim of the CLIMATE EMERGENCY. I suggest we destroy 2-3 coastal cities as
compensationreparations.No need to destroy them.
They’ll be flooded by sea level rise(twice as fast as expected) in 5…4…3… damned, the goalpost was moved again by the rising sea level.
If we could only find a way to pin down a single goalpost somehow we’d finally make an accurate prediction.
Zero hurricanes in Gulf of America … since Trump renamed it.
Zero hurricanes in Lake America … since Trump renamed it.
If Trump renamed the Pacific and Indian oceans we could completely rid the world of dangerous hurricanes!
Trump renaming the Persian Gulf to the “American Gulf of Persia” and the Gulf of Oman to “”American Gulf of Oman”.
Coming next, Truman renames “Canada Dry” to “America Dry,” Canadian geese to “American geese”, and the San Andreas fault to “Joe Biden’s fault”.
“America Dry,”
We tried that already. It was called “Prohibition”. Didn’t work well so we went back to normal. 😎
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
I don’t get it. 😎
It’d be a bit difficult to tell the Indian Ocean from the Pacific Ocean if both are called American Ocean.
And if you think that getting rid of hurricanes would be a great trade-off for that,well
“The US coast is in an unprecedented hurricane drought – WHY THIS IS TERRIFYING”
WaPo Aug. 4th, 2016
More hurricanes – bad
No hurricanes = terrifying
Schroedingers climate – it doesn’t matter if there’s a hurricane in the box or not, the result is always negative.
We would have to name the Indian Ocean the Indigenous People’s Ocean.
Or “Native American Ocean”.
I noticed that the MSM featured the recent “monster” nor-easter storm as to be devastating and the national news was all over itself about its “widespread” impact all along the upper Atlantic coast.
Of course, following one or two evenings of the MSM “weathermen/weathergirls” featuring the obligatory scenes of waves “crashing” over seaside barriers, wind gusting up to—horrors!— 60 mph, and the nearby scenes of water incursion onto beachside streets (wow, imagine that!), this “catastrophic news” disappeared in two days. That’s what happens in the absence of being able to overstate the impact of true hurricanes.
ROTFL!
The recent hurricane (Pluto?) that came out of the Pacific and hit Mexico and produced a lot of rain into the US was described by a meteorologist as depositing trillions of gallons of water. He further said some years ago there was such a large rain event that the ocean was lowered by a 0.25 inch. He said large rain events lower the ocean by very small fractions of an inch due to the trillions of gallons of water that came from the oceans and were deposited on the land.
Hurricane Polo
Here I thought that rivers run into the sea. Don’t rivers get the majority of their water from rain?
PS “Trillions” is a scary number. One inch of rain over one square mile equals about 17,378,743 U.S. gallons of water, depends on how much rain fell over how many square miles to reach “Trillions”.
What an idiot!
Per Google’s AI bot:
“The estimated volume of the world’s oceans is 1.332 billion cubic kilometers. “
Let’s go with the metrologist claim of ‘trillions of gallons” optimistically meaning 3 trillion gallons. That results in a predicted change in ocean volume due to water suspended in the atmosphere and “deposited on land” of (3e9 gallons/((1.33e9 cubic km*2.64e11 gallons/cubic km)) = 8.5e-12 = 8.5 e-10%.
Since this change is so small, we can confidentlyssay it mostly affects ocean depth, not area. Since the average depth of the world’s ocean is estimated to be about 3,685 m, the projected change in depth of those “trillions of gallons that came from the oceans” would be approximately (3,685 m * 8.5e-12) = 3.15e-8 m = 3.2e-5 mm = 1.3 micro-inches. In other words, practically immeasurable!
Ooops . . . my bad . . . 3 trillion gallons would translate to 3e12, not the 3e9 that I stated in my calculations above. So multiply that bottom line by 1000 . . . which results in pretty much the same ho-hum conclusion:
“. . . the projected change in depth of those “trillions of gallons that came from the oceans” would be approximately (3,685 m * 8.5e-9) = 3.15e-5 m = 0.032 mm = 0.0013 inch. In other words, practically immeasurable!”
Spoiler Alert:
A quiet Atlantic Hurricane season was widely predicted this year due to the large and still developing El Niño event.
So you don’t have to listen to the fantabulous “Climate Realism Show” after all.
(You’re welcome.)
I don’t think NOAA are at fault here, just the media that try to draw blood from everything. NOAA did expect a below-average season (8-14 named storms 3-6 hurricanes 1-3 major hurricanes) but were very careful to advise against complacency: “That is why it’s essential to review your hurricane preparedness plan now. It only takes one storm to make for a very bad season.”. It was the media that turned it all into “terrifying”.
“3-6 hurricanes 1-3 major hurricanes”
I’ve never played craps.
How many throws of the dice did NOAA do to get these results.
And did they win or crap out?
These 2:1 and 3:1 wide ranges (not too precise,eh?) were supposedly based on hundreds—thousands?—of hours of “sophisticated” model run time on NOAA’s most recently upgraded twin WCOSS supercomputers, costly something around $250 million USD to date and each said to have a computing speed of 14.5 petaflops.
With NOAA and WCOSS it appears to be GIGO . . . at least when the dice stop rolling one gets a hard number that people at the table can “bank on”. /sarc
The post by TheFinalNail is a perfect example of alarmist rhetoric.
NO ONE predicted zero Atlantic hurricanes as of October 2nd, yet he still chalks this up as an “accurate prediction” by the NOAA model.
As of today’s date their percentage error is “infinite”.
Monkeys throwing darts would have done at least that well!
Really?
He just stated what has been observed (and therefore predicted) by NOAA and other Met organisations >….. that in El Niño years there are less Atlantic hurricanes.
NOAA and others did not know at the time of these predictions that this years EN would be of record strength – SSTs in the central E Pacific currently have an anomaly of + 4-6C, this thus spawning multiple Hurricanes in that region.
The simple physical fact is that hot water coupled with low wind-shear creates Hurricanes.
Also there is no way of predicting the extent of Saharan dust transport across the Atlantic, which acts as a marked inhibitor of Hurricane development (via warming/drying the middle troposphere) and further inhibiting vertical motion of CB clouds.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/category-5-monster-hurricane-polo-explosive-intensification-pacific-mexico-september-2026-mk/
No hurricanes form over the Indian Ocean (widely considered the warmest open ocean basin), the Red Sea (generally regarded as the warmest sea on Earth), or the Persian Gulf (officially classified as one of the warmest shallow seas and bodies of water in the world).
Also, these bodies of water are not known to have wind-shear greater than that present over the North Atlantic during hurricane season.
“Things are not always what they seem; the first appearance deceives many; the intelligence of a few perceives what has been carefully hidden.”
— Phaedrus, from his Fables
“No hurricanes form over the Indian Ocean (widely considered the warmest open ocean basin),”
Really, check this map!
https://www.britannica.com/science/tropical-cyclone/Location-and-patterns-of-tropical-cyclones