|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 16, 2020 2:54:55 GMT
This perhaps states their confidence in their own forecasts ... or the lawyers told them to add it. Disclaimer: The IRI seasonal forecast is a research product. Please see the NOAA CPC forecast for the official seasonal forecast over the U.S. Please consult your country’s national meteorological service for the official forecast for your country.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 16, 2020 3:54:59 GMT
Just an idle surmise but could the shrinking Thermosphere/mesosphere account for the noctilucent clouds? It might, but if 99% of water vapor mass is located in the troposphere, and concentrations rise dramatically toward sea level (chart from climate4you), then any "wringing" effect would have to affect areas below the tropopause.
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jul 17, 2020 16:31:04 GMT
Mr. Sig, a question for you. When the recent Midwestern heat spell began, I read an article by Jeff Masters, resident Climate Emergency Hysteric at Weather Underground, to the effect that the only reason the 2020 "super heat dome" (his words) wouldn't break the all time heat records from the 1930s was because the entire Mid West has been irrigated, and that the moisture from that irrigation depresses daytime highs. Unfortunately I can't find the link, although I think it might have been a news story on the Accuweather Pro site. I had a couple of thoughts about this. First was it was good to see Masters acknowledge the heat of the 1930s as still being significant. I think many anthropogenic GW advocates no longer hold this view. Secondly, I wondered if you could opine on the extent of irrigation that now takes place in the old dust bowl areas. Assuming it is as extensive as Dr. Masters' suggests, would it have a damping affect on temperatures? This inquiring mind would like to know!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2020 21:38:59 GMT
Mr. Sig, a question for you. When the recent Midwestern heat spell began, I read an article by Jeff Masters, resident Climate Emergency Hysteric at Weather Underground, to the effect that the only reason the 2020 "super heat dome" (his words) wouldn't break the all time heat records from the 1930s was because the entire Mid West has been irrigated, and that the moisture from that irrigation depresses daytime highs. Unfortunately I can't find the link, although I think it might have been a news story on the Accuweather Pro site. I had a couple of thoughts about this. First was it was good to see Masters acknowledge the heat of the 1930s as still being significant. I think many anthropogenic GW advocates no longer hold this view. Secondly, I wondered if you could opine on the extent of irrigation that now takes place in the old dust bowl areas. Assuming it is as extensive as Dr. Masters' suggests, would it have a damping affect on temperatures? This inquiring mind would like to know! What Jeff Masters is thinking about is called the "Warming hole". Because the Midwest/Corn Belt continue to not warm they figured out that it was because of irrigation and corn crops. Does this actually "hold water"? Not really. Yes, there is irrigation in "part" of the dust bowl area. Western Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota have very little irrigation. Where I live, there are a few pivots, but not enough to affect any kind of weather pattern. Going to the Twin Cities (home of a burned out shell now)........there is some irrigation. Iowa has some, not a lot. There is more "drain tile" to drain the excess precip that there is irrigation. The warming hole is a warming hole. Just refuses to "warm up". Next question is...........what the hell is Jeff Masters talking about? What heat dome?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2020 21:40:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 17, 2020 21:41:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 18, 2020 11:47:12 GMT
Mr. Sig, a question for you. When the recent Midwestern heat spell began, I read an article by Jeff Masters, resident Climate Emergency Hysteric at Weather Underground, to the effect that the only reason the 2020 "super heat dome" (his words) wouldn't break the all time heat records from the 1930s was because the entire Mid West has been irrigated, and that the moisture from that irrigation depresses daytime highs. Unfortunately I can't find the link, although I think it might have been a news story on the Accuweather Pro site. I had a couple of thoughts about this. First was it was good to see Masters acknowledge the heat of the 1930s as still being significant. I think many anthropogenic GW advocates no longer hold this view. Secondly, I wondered if you could opine on the extent of irrigation that now takes place in the old dust bowl areas. Assuming it is as extensive as Dr. Masters' suggests, would it have a damping affect on temperatures? This inquiring mind would like to know! Rainfall seems to have the effect of dampening temperatures wrt weather stations; I suspect that irrigation and crop growth may do the same. Are hot days in Australia mostly due to low rainfall, and electronic thermometers — not CO2?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 18, 2020 12:16:40 GMT
Mr. Sig, a question for you. When the recent Midwestern heat spell began, I read an article by Jeff Masters, resident Climate Emergency Hysteric at Weather Underground, to the effect that the only reason the 2020 "super heat dome" (his words) wouldn't break the all time heat records from the 1930s was because the entire Mid West has been irrigated, and that the moisture from that irrigation depresses daytime highs. Unfortunately I can't find the link, although I think it might have been a news story on the Accuweather Pro site. I had a couple of thoughts about this. First was it was good to see Masters acknowledge the heat of the 1930s as still being significant. I think many anthropogenic GW advocates no longer hold this view. Secondly, I wondered if you could opine on the extent of irrigation that now takes place in the old dust bowl areas. Assuming it is as extensive as Dr. Masters' suggests, would it have a damping affect on temperatures? This inquiring mind would like to know! We are back into the major problem with use of imprecise language and that imprecision is even found in research papers after multiple 'peer reviews'. What is warming? Well that is a rise in temperature isn't it. Does that mean there is more energy in the volume of air modeled no it doesn't. Temperature is an intensive variable which means that it is an elastic measure tape What we really need to measure is heat content of the atmosphere - temperature is NOT a measure of heat content of air as the humidity varies the 'specific heat' of air - known as its enthalpy - which is really another way of accounting for the latent heat of the water molecules in the air which alters the lapse rate of the air and is also described as the wet and dry lapse rates. An example: Imagine a Louisiana bayou in the afternoon after a thundershower the air misty and 100% humidity at 75F. A volume of that bayou air has twice the heat energy content as a similar volume of air in Death Valley at close to zero humidity at 100F. So is the air in Death Valley 'warmer' than the air in the Louisiana bayou? Well according to climate scientists it is and the 'heat records' in the desert areas are 'hotter' These terms are completely meaningless. Heat content of air should be expressed in kilojoules per kilogram this is calculated taking the humidity of the air into account. The entire NASA GISS record is a complete waste of time as it is temperature not heat content. Yet the 'green house effect' is based on trapping of heat. You cannot ' trap temperature' Now to the original question what is needed is an understanding of the humidity of the dust-bowl states - that is the reason that the irrigation of the area matters. But of course the winds matter too with a latitudinal jetstream the weather patterns will be different to a meridional jetstream particularly if there is a blocking high resident over the desert areas with descending dry air. However, the claim that humidity made it cooler shows the falsity of the approach, the amount of heat energy content of the more humid air may be more even though it has a lower temperature. Climate science is a crock of poor methods, imprecise colloquial metrics, and clever misuse of words to persuade the ignorant and gullible. Then they have the gall to show graphs with expanded Y axes showing air temperatures to hundredths of a degree! The entire claimed 'global warming' atmospheric temperature anomalies could be due to a very small change in humidity. Yet climate scientists continue to argue over hundredths of an elastic degree.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 18, 2020 13:30:44 GMT
Mr. Sig, a question for you. When the recent Midwestern heat spell began, I read an article by Jeff Masters, resident Climate Emergency Hysteric at Weather Underground, to the effect that the only reason the 2020 "super heat dome" (his words) wouldn't break the all time heat records from the 1930s was because the entire Mid West has been irrigated, and that the moisture from that irrigation depresses daytime highs. Unfortunately I can't find the link, although I think it might have been a news story on the Accuweather Pro site. I had a couple of thoughts about this. First was it was good to see Masters acknowledge the heat of the 1930s as still being significant. I think many anthropogenic GW advocates no longer hold this view. Secondly, I wondered if you could opine on the extent of irrigation that now takes place in the old dust bowl areas. Assuming it is as extensive as Dr. Masters' suggests, would it have a damping affect on temperatures? This inquiring mind would like to know! We are back into the major problem with use of imprecise language and that imprecision is even found in research papers after multiple 'peer reviews'. What is warming? Well that is a rise in temperature isn't it. Does that mean there is more energy in the volume of air modeled no it doesn't. Temperature is an intensive variable which means that it is an elastic measure tape What we really need to measure is heat content of the atmosphere - temperature is NOT a measure of heat content of air as the humidity varies the 'specific heat' of air - known as its enthalpy - which is really another way of accounting for the latent heat of the water molecules in the air which alters the lapse rate of the air and is also described as the wet and dry lapse rates. An example: Imagine a Louisiana bayou in the afternoon after a thundershower the air misty and 100% humidity at 75F. A volume of that bayou air has twice the heat energy content as a similar volume of air in Death Valley at close to zero humidity at 100F. So is the air in Death Valley 'warmer' than the air in the Louisiana bayou? Well according to climate scientists it is and the 'heat records' in the desert areas are 'hotter' These terms are completely meaningless. Heat content of air should be expressed in kilojoules per kilogram this is calculated taking the humidity of the air into account. The entire NASA GISS record is a complete waste of time as it is temperature not heat content. Yet the 'green house effect' is based on trapping of heat. You cannot ' trap temperature' Now to the original question what is needed is an understanding of the humidity of the dust-bowl states - that is the reason that the irrigation of the area matters. But of course the winds matter too with a latitudinal jetstream the weather patterns will be different to a meridional jetstream particularly if there is a blocking high resident over the desert areas with descending dry air. However, the claim that humidity made it cooler shows the falsity of the approach, the amount of heat energy content of the more humid air may be more even though it has a lower temperature. Climate science is a crock of poor methods, imprecise colloquial metrics, and clever misuse of words to persuade the ignorant and gullible. Then they have the gall to show graphs with expanded Y axes showing air temperatures to hundredths of a degree! The entire claimed 'global warming' atmospheric temperature anomalies could be due to a very small change in humidity. Yet climate scientists continue to argue over hundredths of an elastic degree. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" The point and its resolution very much depends on who has issued the grant and the gullibility of the audience. As in times past, Constantinople is falling and the scholars are debating the capacity and micro-environment of the dance floor.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 19, 2020 11:39:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 21, 2020 5:32:57 GMT
China Floods I was checking out historical Chinese floods and it appears all the major ones (from a Wiki list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods ) occur during solar minimums. The only large exception was the 1938 Yellow River floods that were intensionally set off by the Nationalist Government to interrupt the advance of Japanese forces. Interestingly, the large documented floods occur not only during solar minimum, but every two solar cycles: 1887, 1911, 1931, 1954, 1974, 1998 and 2020. Reasons?
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 21, 2020 7:37:18 GMT
China Floods I was checking out historical Chinese floods and it appears all the major ones (from a Wiki list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods ) occur during solar minimums. The only large exception was the 1938 Yellow River floods that were intensionally set off by the Nationalist Government to interrupt the advance of Japanese forces. Interestingly, the large documented floods occur not only during solar minimum, but every two solar cycles: 1887, 1911, 1931, 1954, 1974, 1998 and 2020. Reasons? I hope your pay rise has come thru, MB.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jul 21, 2020 8:10:15 GMT
I thank you for the thought Ratty. But if you know a good crystal ball repair man, I'd sure like to talk with him/her. Once knew a fella named model, who could tell you everything about anything. But he wandered off. Just as well cause he was always wrong. Problem was, he never knew it.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 21, 2020 9:42:36 GMT
China Floods I was checking out historical Chinese floods and it appears all the major ones (from a Wiki list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods ) occur during solar minimums. The only large exception was the 1938 Yellow River floods that were intensionally set off by the Nationalist Government to interrupt the advance of Japanese forces. Interestingly, the large documented floods occur not only during solar minimum, but every two solar cycles: 1887, 1911, 1931, 1954, 1974, 1998 and 2020. Reasons? The complete Solar magnetic cycle, the Hale cycle is actually 22 years. What is being counted as Solar Cycles is in fact half solar cycles. Therefore, it seems that there is something about the 11 year 'halves' of the solar cycles that is different. The only thing that I know of that takes 22 years is the solar magnetic orientation that flips every 11 years so 22 years would see the return to a particular magnetic orientation. Do the 'magnetic ropes' that connect the Sun to the Earth's magnetosphere drive weather changes - it appears that this has already been claimed. I had not seen this linked to the Hale cycle and matching polarities though although it makes sense. Tim Ball on solar magnetism and weather:> wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/29/magnetism-and-weather-interconnections-2/NASA description of 'magnetic rope' connections to the Sun:> science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/How Solar wind could affect weather (Solar wind follows the magnetic interconnections with the Sun):> eos.org/research-spotlights/solar-wind-may-affect-weather-climateI wonder what the diagram would look like if the peaks of the solar cycles were inverted every other cycle so with magnetic poles one way the cycle peaks upward and the other way it peaks downward. I suspect that every cross over in one direction will be linked to Chinese floods - i.e. higher precipitation in that area. There will be other similar patterns if that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jul 21, 2020 10:46:17 GMT
China Floods I was checking out historical Chinese floods and it appears all the major ones (from a Wiki list en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods ) occur during solar minimums. The only large exception was the 1938 Yellow River floods that were intensionally set off by the Nationalist Government to interrupt the advance of Japanese forces. Interestingly, the large documented floods occur not only during solar minimum, but every two solar cycles: 1887, 1911, 1931, 1954, 1974, 1998 and 2020. Reasons? The complete Solar magnetic cycle, the Hale cycle is actually 22 years. What is being counted as Solar Cycles is in fact half solar cycles. Therefore, it seems that there is something about the 11 year 'halves' of the solar cycles that is different. The only thing that I know of that takes 22 years is the solar magnetic orientation that flips every 11 years so 22 years would see the return to a particular magnetic orientation. Do the 'magnetic ropes' that connect the Sun to the Earth's magnetosphere drive weather changes - it appears that this has already been claimed. I had not seen this linked to the Hale cycle and matching polarities though although it makes sense. Tim Ball on solar magnetism and weather:> wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/29/magnetism-and-weather-interconnections-2/NASA description of 'magnetic rope' connections to the Sun:> science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/30oct_ftes/How Solar wind could affect weather (Solar wind follows the magnetic interconnections with the Sun):> eos.org/research-spotlights/solar-wind-may-affect-weather-climateI wonder what the diagram would look like if the peaks of the solar cycles were inverted every other cycle so with magnetic poles one way the cycle peaks upward and the other way it peaks downward. I suspect that every cross over in one direction will be linked to Chinese floods - i.e. higher precipitation in that area. There will be other similar patterns if that is the case. When talking with management, I might just suggest a pay rise for you too, Naut.
|
|