|
Post by missouriboy on May 5, 2021 23:03:21 GMT
Does anyone have a good link on how to read the MJO. It always confuses me.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 7, 2021 16:17:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 7, 2021 18:45:26 GMT
Does anyone have a good link on how to read the MJO. It always confuses me. I think this maybe makes a good hash of it... opensnow.com/news/post/the-madden-julian-oscillation-mjo-explainedMjo isn't an intuitive thing. It happens, but I haven't seen a good explanation as to why. It was only identified 20 odd years ago and while effects have been somewhat correlated, that doesn't mean we understand it. I have observed its 6/7 phases forcing blocking in Atlantic, it can seem like there's no changes from zonal until mjo goes in these regions then bang, blocking goes into gear. Useful tool, but a bit like a blackbird dropping stones into a half full bottle of milk, it knows it works....but doesn't understand why. For example, look at where mjo was during much of April.....consider weather in Europe....
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on May 7, 2021 18:53:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 8, 2021 0:40:35 GMT
" Mjo isn't an intuitive thing." I've entered that for the 2021 Understatement of the Year award.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 8, 2021 1:55:28 GMT
Thank you Acid. I'm going into training.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on May 8, 2021 15:18:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on May 8, 2021 19:30:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 8, 2021 23:03:30 GMT
“Ocean acidification can mess with a fish’s mind.” Scientists' minds too.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 8, 2021 23:13:31 GMT
Science is a method of seeking the truth Anyone using the phrase ' the science' is a politician and does not want to find the truth but wants to prove themselves right
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 12, 2021 3:07:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 12, 2021 14:33:19 GMT
Hi Non and Ratty,
Hope you have some nice warm clothes and did not sell your coats
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 12, 2021 18:18:06 GMT
A thread from the past with a good discussion on radiative heat transfer "
Jul 26, 2014
#287
IanC said: He doesn't have one. That he compares the flow of photons to the flow of water just illustrates the naivete of his thinking. Photons do not interact with each other, only with matter.
Science 24 May 1963: Vol. 140 no. 3569 pp. 870-877 DOI: 10.1126/science.140.3569.870
In a practical situation and room-temperature setting, humans lose considerable energy due to thermal radiation. However, the energy lost by emitting infrared light is partially regained by absorbing the heat flow due to conduction from surrounding objects, and the remainder resulting from generated heat through metabolism. Human skin has an emissivity of very close to 1.0 . Using the formulas below shows a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.
I'd like him to explain how the above article, made it to publication, back in 1963, with this claim.......
a human, having roughly 2 square meter in surface area, and a temperature of about 307 K, continuously radiates approximately 1000 watts. However, if people are indoors, surrounded by surfaces at 296 K, they receive back about 900 watts from the wall, ceiling, and other surroundings, so the net loss is only about 100 watts.
He likes to say there is no net flow, simply one way. He can't blame a warmer for that article, can he?"www.usmessageboard.com/threads/physicist-offers-10-000-to-anyone-who-can-disprove-climate-change.361222/page-15
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 14, 2021 19:50:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on May 18, 2021 0:10:53 GMT
|
|