Understanding The Difference Between Climate And Weather

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Understanding The Difference Between Climate And Weather

  1. mickey says:

    Arctic temps below the 1958-2002 mean for the first time since the end of last summer.

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  2. Griff says:

    winter continues on the US E coast and parts of Europe because cold has been displaced from a warming arctic…

    There is solid science behind that.

    but if you prefer to decide climate is weather based on political prejudice…

    • Steve Case says:

      Griff says:
      March 21, 2018 at 9:54 am
      winter continues on the US E coast and parts of Europe because cold has been displaced from a warming arctic…

      In other words average temperature has been maintained.

      Having said that, I am reminded of the smart remark:

      “Be careful of averages, the average person has one breast and one testicle” -Dixy Lee Ray

    • AndyG55 says:

      ” cold has been displaced from a warming arctic…”

      BULLS**T !!

      Arctic temps are below the 40 year average.

    • AndyG55 says:

      You are EMPTY of science griff.

      You don’t even know what it is. !!

    • Mark Fife says:

      Just my opinion, but this sounds like so much penguin poop. Could it just be foaming flop flying out of the mouths of AGW propagandists? I think so.

      The idea of low pressure warm air from the south pushing high pressure cold air out of the Arctic by advection seems counter intuitive. Especially since the areas just outside the Arctic pressure zone are low pressure zones.

      A far more likely explanation would be high pressure cold air pushing outward from the Arctic. Such an air mass would become colder by virtue of passing from a high pressure zone to a low pressure zone. At least, that’s how AC units work.

      At least my explanation follows our understanding of basic physics, such as how a pressure gradient works.

      “The pressure gradient force is a force that tries to equalize pressure differences. This is the force that causes high pressure to push air toward low pressure. Thus air would flow from high to low pressure if the pressure gradient force was the only force acting on it.”

      But I suppose there is no rational basis to consider pseudo scientists like Al Gore and Bill Nye spewing such utter illogic as fact in any way political. I am sure it is far more economical.

    • Gator says:

      … because cold has been displaced from a warming arctic…

      Warming since when Ms Griff? The end of the LIA? Why do you hate poor brown people Ms Griff?

    • TimA says:

      Warming warms cold it doesn’t displace it. It would be warmer everywhere….derr.

  3. bleakhouses says:

    Low intelligence individuals always fall for “head I win, tails you lose.”

  4. The Other Brad says:

    I like that tweet.

  5. Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE says:

    K-T and assorted clone diagrams of atmospheric power flux balances include a GHG up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop of about 330 W/m^2 which violates three basic laws of thermodynamics: 1) energy created out of thin air, 2) energy moving (i.e. heat) from cold to hot without added work, and 3) 100% efficiency, zero loss, perpetual looping.

    One possible defense of this critique is that USCRN and SURFRAD data actually measure and thereby prove the existence of this up/down/”back” LWIR energy loop. Although in many instances the net 333 W/m^2 of up/down/”back” LWIR power flux loop exceeds by over twice the downwelling solar power flux, a rather obvious violation of conservation of energy.

    And just why is that?

    Per Apogee SI-100 series radiometer Owner’s Manual page 15. “Although the ε (emissivity) of a fully closed plant canopy can be 0.98-0.99, the lower ε of soils and other surfaces can result in substantial errors if ε effects are not accounted for.”

    Emissivity, ε, is the ratio of the actual radiation from a surface and the maximum S-B BB radiation at the surface’s temperature. Consider an example from the K-T diagram: 63 W/m^2 / 396 W/m^2 = 0.16 = ε. In fact, 63 W/m^2 & 289 K & 0.16 together fit just fine in a GB version of the S-B equation. What no longer fits is the 330 W/m^2 GHG loop which vanishes back into the mathematical thin air from whence it came.

    “Their staff is too long. They are digging in the wrong place.”

    “There is no spoon.”

    And

    Up/down/”back” GHG radiation of RGHE theory simply:
    Does
    Not
    Exist.

    Which also explains why the scientific justification of RGHE is so contentious.

Leave a Reply to Gator Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.