North and South Hemisphere

59 thoughts on “North and South Hemisphere”

1. A simplistic answer = combination of greater heat capacity and effects from evaporation.

   The puzzles and intricacies of weather .. well, oceans hold heat longer than land, following solar activity with lag times of up to decades; ocean surface is always in vertical motion locally, (waves), so surface area and angle of solar incidence vary accordingly, affecting reflection, refraction, evaporation, and sublimation rates; there are no ‘urban heat island’ effects on the ocean, possibly making measurement less susceptible to the effects of poor location or maintenance issues; biological activities differ, especially close to and close under the surface of oceans; maybe temperature inversion events are less common on the ocean surface, but how would we know?

   And the elephant in the room – thermal emission from liquids operate at near the third power rather than at the fourth, (for vapour, commonly somewhat less than the third power and often drops off as T increases). Meteorology and analytical chemistry have extensive empirical observation of this in real materials in the real world, but climatology, not so much.

   So here’s to the wonderous world of the mysteries of the ever anomalous substance, water!

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. That is definitely the best answer received thus far.

      One tiny correction: The data is strictly from satellites, so we know there’s no local station issues.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   2. As usual, discussions stay off my blog 😦
      Here were some other ideas:
      http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/friday-open-thread-2/

      LikeLike

      Reply

2. Hi Zoe, what a good idea to look at the characteristics of the atmosphere using reanalysis data. Congratulations on your initiative. It contains the history of the atmosphere.Look closely and you will see that it doesn’t support greenhouse theory .eg, no warming in December in the southern hemisphere, taken as a whole, for seventy years.

   Global temperature peaks in July when solar irradiance is 6% weaker than in January because of orbital considerations.

   The northern hemisphere has most of the land. Land can not store energy like water.

   In northern hemisphere summer the land heats the atmosphere and global cloud cover falls to its annual minimum.

   Result: Northern hemisphere is 4C warmer than the Southern in their respective summers. The warming of the northern hemisphere drives the global average.

   Lesson: cloud cover, like snow cover, drives reflection and this drives surface temperature.Ozone has a seasonal cycle according to the dynamics in the high latitude atmosphere in winter. Dynamics evolve with solar cycle activity.

   Look at the reanalysis data for temperature at 250 hPa, below the tropopause. You’ll see that it behaves independently of surface temperature but is closely related. Above 500 hPa cloud is in the form of multi branching highly reflective ice crystals.Ozone heat the atmosphere, regardless of whether we are referring to troposphere or stratosphere. Therein is the clue relating to the origins of climate change.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. Thank you, Erl.

      LikeLike

      Reply

3. But, the reverse also would hold true, wouldn’t it? If northern summers are warmer (b/c of the greater land mass), they also would be colder (since the land mass would cool more quickly). In practice, based on Zoe’s calculations, presumably by not as much (so, you cited 4 deg. C warmer in summer; it should be colder in winter, but just by less). Does heat transport through ocean currents have an impact?

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Ian you are right. The northern hemisphere is colder than the southern hemisphere in winter. Yes, heat transported by ocean currents has an enormous effect. Its suggested that at the time that Antarctica was joined to South America the tropics was much cooler and the Antarctic was ice free.

      Data is freely available here: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. NOAA may be labouring under the dogma that the poles stay fixed. Its a very dubious idea that the equator would ever get colder. Its more like the tropical zones enlarge and chase the other niches north, south, and up the mountains. I wonder how good their paleo data is.

         LikeLike

         Reply

4. Hi Zoe,
   Great analysis and good to see these things quantified.

   You say: The southern hemisphere has a higher absorption fraction, higher net insolation, more water and lower elevation. It has every advantage to be hotter than the northern hemisphere and yet it is not, it is 15.6322 °C (North) – 14.3295 °C (South) = 1.3 °C cooler. How come?

   Answer: The South sucks in the energy because it has more ocean. The Ocean is transparent to solar radiation to many, metres below the surface depending on turbidity. Sharing that energy over a great depth results in a smaller increase in temperature anywhere you measure it between the surface and the dark zone.

   Soil and rock absorbs poorly. The increase in temperature is fast. A body emits radiation according to its temperature. It follows that the northern hemisphere loses energy faster than the south. The heat of summer is a temporary phenomenon due to loss of cloud cover. Its all gone by November because its been irradiated away or lost by conduction to the air near the surface. If its conduction then convection comes into play. Convection is faster when the temperature differential between the surface and the air is greater.

   When you go to the beach on hot day your bare feet will absorb heat from the sand quickly and give you blisters. So, you run to the water to cool off. The water is not cool because of evaporation. It warms according to its depth, more in the shallows than further out where its deeper. The depth determines how many molecules are available to store the energy that is available.

   If you looked at reanalysis data from 1948 you would see at first cooling and then warming in the northern hemisphere at 35 to 50 degrees of latitude with no change in the peak summer months.

   On the other hand if you looked at the data for the latitude band 22.5 to 35 degrees south you will see warming to the tune of 1C in seventy years. That’s due to cloud loss in the zone where high pressure cells circulate.

   However, taken as a whole the southern hemisphere is no warmer in January than it was 70 years ago.

   Warming is not due to greenhouse gases. Its related to cloud cover and where the wind is coming from. To discover the ‘how’ of that you need to look at surface pressure data.

   LikeLike

   Reply

5. Southern ocean can generate a lot more sea ice, which reflects solar radiation away, than the north (Arctic ocean).

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. That’s true, but …

      65N-90N : -9.19 C
      65S-90S : -18.38 C

      65-90 latitude is 9.1% of a hemisphere

      Arctic vs. Antarctic gives the North a
      9.2 C * 0.091 = 0.84 C advantage

      That is indeed a factor, but not enough to overcome the 0.458 C elevation advantage and 1.86 C insolation advantage of the South.

      We are now at 1.86 + 0.458 – 0.84 = 1.478 C advantage for the South, but North is still 1.3 C warmer.

      The answer is geothermal.

      LikeLike

      Reply

6. These comments are under moderation at Joannes. I put them there before I realised I could post here:

   So the Northern Hemisphere has more land. The Southern Hemisphere gets more solar energy. Yet its not warmer. The answer is geothermal but why? After all most of the ring of fire would be in the South? I think land accepts electrical energy much better than the ocean does. After all if you have a hurricane out to sea thats when it picks up energy. When it comes all the way over the land it tends to short out and lose power. So I think we have a greater acceptance of electrical energy, and that will be reconverted as thermal energy, some as geothermal, but probably much of it converted prior to that. Just as electricity through a partial conductor creates some heat.

   Also we would want to look at if evaporation off the ocean is a net cooler or a net warmer. I think it would be a refrigerant except where there is a pre-existing column of saturated air. Basically everywhere outside of the tropics on average. So under that circumstance the extra water surface of the southern hemisphere would be a net cooling factor. Also if the thermal energy is invested more in the latent heat of evaporation, then it is in high temperature per se, the hidden thermal energy in the presumably more moist air of the southern hemisphere might not be being fully picked up. 28 degree air at 4.00 pm in Cairns probably holds more energy than the same temperature in inner Mongolia.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. My geothermal theory has nothing to do with volcanoes, or any other exotic things.
      My theory is based on the fact that the Earth is an infrared star with its own “low” energy supply.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. “My theory is based on the fact that the Earth is an infrared star with its own “low” energy supply.”

         I like this idea since it falls in nicely with my alternative cosmology. I say that moons grow to planets grow to gas giants grow to stars grow to bigger stars. Since matter and energy are not conserved, since if so there would never be mass nor energy, we have to figure out where the pristine energy and mass is being created.

         Some locations kind of stick out.

         LikeLiked by 1 person

         Reply

   2. Land low heat capacity = quicker to heat in the daytime and faster to cool in the nighttime.

      Heat capacity has no thermal effect that can raise average temperature.

      My geothermal math is evidence based and explains everything perfectly well without any speculation necessary.

      Occam’s Razor …

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Yes I don’t take my second paragraph seriously. I just threw it in at Joannes place to have all bases covered. But your definition of geothermal would include the conversion of electrical energy to thermal energy. And since land is a better conductor then the ocean, that could explain the whole thing. Rather than the earth favouring one side or the other for an unknown reason.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. The oceans are warmer because they can better convect the heat that’s below the surface. Oceans reach deeper into the Earth as you know. Geothermal hotter at those ocean bottoms.

            The oceans are always warmer than the land – at every latitude that’s possible. This can not be explained with top-down heating, either by electrical, GHGs, or atmo pressure.

            I think my theory fits the most observations easiest.

            LikeLike

         2. Check out the Alan Siddons finding that the moon has a greater “Greenhouse effect” than the earth. Of course Alan doesn’t think there is this greenhouse effect, but he found that the moon was on average 40 degrees warmer than it was supposed to be. This could have some bearing here.

            LikeLike

         3. Last I recall, the moon has a mean temperature of 198K, and not more than 270K as its greybody SB Law would suggest. This doesn’t support Siddons’ claim.

            LikeLike

         4. Interesting. I’d wondered if there had been any update on that.

            LikeLike

         5. I’ll guess that Siddons’ math may only apply to the equator. That was figured out early.

            LikeLike

         6. Thank you for the comments, btw.

            LikeLike

         7. Zoe I lack your capacities when it comes to finding and processing data. If I could do what you can do I’d probably launch a massive assault on mainstream economic thought. So if you get any more information on this moon situation do let me know. Because thats a bit of a game-changer. Can you remember if there were serious refutations? Or if Alan and the others had come out and corrected themselves? Alan is a top flight fellow, but I stopped looking into climate science after about 2008. So if he nuanced that study either openly or on the blogs I would have missed out on it.

            It would tell us a lot more about what is going on earth if we had our heads around the example of that giant carpark not far away. The more someone like yourself found out about that blank slate, the more you could say about what was going on closer to our postcodes.

            Here we have two planets, as it were, and one cannot be more of an open canvas and the other has all the bells and whistles that allow for the thing we call “the climate” We ought to be comparing the two all the time but for that we need to be experts on the giant carpark.

            I’ve seem a fellow called Stametz talking about how he thinks his experiences with a certain class of mushroom helped him overcome his stuttering. But you know. For selfish reasons I wouldn’t want to be making too many suggestions, lest we risk losing your research superpowers.

            LikeLiked by 1 person

7. But the electrical energy can penetrate deep before conversion to thermal energy. Solar flares are often associated with volcanoes, and earthquakes. There is subsidence earthquakes but the primary quakes I take to be underground volcanoes. Electricity and geothermal outbursts are not unrelated. Watch a volcano blow its top and often you’ll see lightning present as well.

   So yes I get it that the energy you are talking about is coming from the ground up. But it may have started as electrical energy heading to the deep earth.

   “Oceans reach deeper into the Earth as you know. Geothermal hotter at those ocean bottoms.”

   This particularly tells us that we would want a reason why geothermal favoured the north over the south. You would think it would be the other way around.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Well that’s true, I can’t tell if Earth’s interior heat is not due to external induction. Maybe it is?

      Northern oceans may be deeper? Will check.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. I think the Pacific is the newest and deepest we have.

         LikeLike

         Reply

      2. ” I can’t tell if Earth’s interior heat is not due to external induction. ”

         In my mental model there is heat being generated at the centre, as well as heat being converted from electrical energy. And there ought to be such a thing as pristine energy in this universe. Since if energy were conserved there would be no energy ever.

         LikeLiked by 1 person

         Reply

8. Zoe, than answer is quite simple. The south pole region is at a significant elevation, it is covered in ice ALL the year. The region you are considering if looked at as near polar and polar, ie two regions north and south you would find that the oceanic region og the south pole is indeed slightly warmer while the polar ice cap is way colder.
   This illustrates the danger of averaging the earths climate.
   Michael Logician

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. 65N-90N : -9.19 C
      65S-90S : -18.38 C

      65-90 latitude is 9.1% of a hemisphere

      Arctic vs. Antarctic gives the North a
      9.2 C * 0.091 = 0.84 C advantage

      That is indeed a factor, but not enough to overcome the 0.458 C elevation advantage and 1.86 C insolation advantage of the South.

      We are now at 1.86 + 0.458 – 0.84 = 1.478 C advantage for the South, but North is still 1.3 C warmer.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Hi Zoe and others,
         Just consider this; Your math uses the Earth’s Albedo, yet your code evaluates the Earth as two hemispheres.
         The Northern Hemisphere Albedo if one were able to measure it varies quite a lot during summer as all that snow in Canada and Siberia melts. In the Southern hemisphere the Albedo hardly varies as Antarctic is always snow covered.
         I have no way to assess this variation in effective Albedo, does anyone have any idea by how much this effects the Hemispheres temperatures?
         Michael Logician.

         LikeLike

         Reply

         1. Under the idea that there is a secondary source of energy (ie electrical) ….. Antarctica is covered by this thick electrical insulator; ice. It does such a good job that the electricity coming in from above causes the circumpolar current. Water going around and around attempting to earth. So restrictions to electrical energy earthing are added to albedo as a relative cooling factor. Then the remainder of the Southern hemisphere is mostly sea. Which conducts less well than land that hasn’t been iced over. Having about 2.8 degrees to explain, this electrical idea could explain quite a lot of it.

            LikeLike

9. I noticed google has spiked this site. It won’t list it, as compared to duckduckgo which sends me straight here. But they haven’t spiked it well enough because your images send us here. But its vandalism to your site because you have to already know what you are looking for.

   Talking about likely locations of pristine energy. Rotations of two large bodies appear to be energy positive. Whereas rotations with one large body and a small object seem to conform to heritage formulae. Unless its a rocket that you are trying to get a planetary boost from. Thats energy positive also.

   Another location would be where there is charge separation due indirectly to gravity. Which I think happens in the corona and the Van Allen belt and in like locations. Also I think the same thing happens in the centre of large gravitational bodies also through charge separation. If gravity is a nucleon-to-nucleon phenomenon then there will be a voided region at the centre of large bodies. And the prospect for some charge separation at the centre of that region. Thats why I concur with your intuition that we are basically an infrared star.

   Another contributing factor to the discrepancy between the north and south hemisphere. Since these Stefan Boltzmann formulae are one of the few that describe nature using the fourth power it follows that to spread energy out is to conserve joules. The Northern hemisphere has an ocean current that goes more or less directly north south. Thats a great energy retention strategy. Particularly as warmer water then tunnels under cooler water in the sea of Labrador. This tunneling under is another heat conservation strategy. So much so that recoveries to glacial periods were continually thrown into reverse by big chunks of ice breaking off at Hudson Bay and landing on the Gulf Stream right about the time that we were climbing out of the big freeze.

   The Southern hemisphere has nothing like this. Since the circumpolar current just goes round and round, whereas it may draw in new water its non-North-South orientation constitutes no fabulous heat retention strategy.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   1. It’s my fault. I’ve been posting links to this site at hostile places on youtube.

      You’re right about the gulf stream. It is a huge addition to North temp.

      One difficulty with my geothermal theory is that oceans cover up and wash away the real locations of geothermal energy. The thermohaline circulation makes it impossible for me to tell the real ocean bottom geothermal via satellite data.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Thats a good thing. One tries to get inside peoples bubble world to help them out a bit. But there is only so much you can do.

         LikeLiked by 1 person

         Reply

      2. After stewing on matters for a couple of days, I see my mental model as working very well with your inner oblate infrared star; biased North. Spookily well if you think about negative charges generated from the centre and positive charges coming down from above, with the charges seeking each-other out at distance, taking some materials with them. The ice-covered land is the ultimate blocking factor, the sea water is the second worst conductor and the land without ice does better. With volcanoes being the best of all conductors. Listed in order of conductivity 1-4.

         All works out very nicely and almost too nicely. But the charges have to almost “want” to move towards they can meet at a distance.

         LikeLike

         Reply

10. Dear Zoe. I dont know much about this, and struggle with the language, but think you should see this. Maybe it can be of some use. Anyway, keep up the good work:)

    In 2008 NASA found a giant breach in the magnetic shield at the size of 4 earths,
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach

    and i often think about that when north is warmer, specially north Europe and Scandinavia like we see here. https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2020/02/06/11/january-temperatures.png?w660

    The bigger picture

    Axial tilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt

    According to the program Stellarium the sun is closer to the earth than in over 20,000 years

    For the past 2000 years, we have been in the hottest period of a 40,000 year cycle, and now it is turning. The sun moves slowly but surely away from the earth

    On 01.01.2019 the distance to the sun was 147,106 M km
    The 01.01.-13900 distance to the sun was 150.811 M km
    The 01.01.-22000 distance to the sun was 152,105 M km

    The computer program “Stellarium” shows the starry sky in the present and you can go thousands of years forward or back in time and see what it was like then. The program can be downloaded for free at Stellarium.org

    NASA claimed the magnetic shield is weakening at 5% per decade, and it seems to increase
    Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now. https://www.livescience.com/46694-magnetic-field-weakens.html

    andt Arctic started to melt long before climate alarmist say. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/warm-welcome/

    Something is happening, and it is not CO2

    Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-change-hits-mars-qw79j9xt0zx

    ENTIRE SOLAR SYSTEM IS HEATING UP! SCIENTISTS BLAME SOLAR WARMING (Space News 10/06/2015) https://www.space.news/2015-10-06-entire-solar-system-is-heating-up-scientists-blame-solar-warming.html

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    Reply

11. Hi again Zoe,
    You have to figure out a way to get the Albedo data correct.
    The Northern Hemisphere in the winter, summer winter cycle has its Albedo reduce as all that northern hemisphere snow comes and goes. Maximum in winter, minimum in summer.
    The Southern Hemisphere has the opposite situation as its Albedo increases to a maximum in High summer. This is because there is very little land covered in snow in the southern hemispheres winter.

    Also someone mentioned the Gulf Stream. The winds out of the gulf of Mexico have had a million years or so to create that great current and it carries millions of cubic Km of warm water northwards. The technical term for this effect is ‘Fetch’, been known about for generations of sailors.
    Michael Logician

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. The winds haven’t had millions of years to create this current. For starters the current needs to be driven the whole time one way or another or it will slow down and stop.

       But secondly the current gets stopped often. The last time it was halted I think they are calling it the Younger Dryas event. Thought to be when the Laurentide ice sheet had mostly melted and then the water finally burst. Landed directly on the Gulf Stream and it may have taken about 1000 years for the Gulf Stream to start up again.

       I actually see the Laurentide ice sheet as the former North Pole ice sheet, but I suppose that this is neither here nor there.

       LikeLike

       Reply

12. “This is because there is very little land covered in snow in the southern hemispheres winter.” Only a gigantic continent comprising the majority of the worlds fresh water. So not sure about your argument here.

    LikeLike

    Reply

13. Interesting graphs – thanks
    I’ll mention that variations in the earth’s (and the sun’s orbits) most notably due to the planet Jupiter, but also the other planetary giants, causes alternate hotter and colder winters and summers on a 11-12 year cycle.
    I’ll have a look at the data there may be a fit there somewhere.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    Reply

14. Zoe since this provocation has been rejected elsewhere I’ll toss it to you. I can put up with being beat up by a girl if its for a good reason. It will be interesting to see if you can do anything with the following:

    “Supposing there is a hurricane gaining energy at night. And you are wondering “where is all this energy coming from?” Or supposing you are contemplating how it is that the jet streams can accelerate during the night-time? One thing you could do is go to the wikipedia and make a list of all the energy types there are, and then figure out which of these 1. Can constitute a massive source of stored energy 2. Can be readily converted to wind energy in a natural setting and 3. Cannot be ruled out as the stored energy source for the subject at hand.

    Here are the energy sources listed by the Wikipedia: 1. Mechanical 2. Electric 3. Magnetic 4. Gravitational 5. Ionization 6. Nuclear 7. Chromodynamic 8. Elastic 9. Mechanical wave 10. Sound wave 11. Radiant 12. Thermal 13 Rest

    We are going to knock out Mechanical since the wind is itself mechanical energy, and if the unknown energy source switched off the winds would die down. Not gain energy. We can eliminate radiant energy since its night-time and there is no way to focus the radiant energy from luke-warm water into a monstrous extreme weather event that releases as much energy as a nuclear weapon every few seconds. Energy spreads out. It doesn’t focus except by exceptional and usually artificial means. Energy flux density is reduced with time. We can eliminate sound waves. Thermal energy isn’t going to fly since that would manifest as upward swirling and more or less randomised motion. It may be part of the structure of a hurricane but cannot explain its force. Nor can it be causing the sustained horizontal winds of the jet streams. We can eliminate Elastic. Chromodynamic is just some theory about quarks and things. Thats out. Dubious from the start. Rest energy is some Einsteinian speculation. Probably nonsense but at least not relevant here. Ionisation may play a big part, and probably does, but not as the main reservoir of stored energy.

    Gravitational is interesting. The Connolly father and son team were trying to incorporate this energy source being as they could see sinking air in the stratosphere. Probably seeing much of the same things as Cycles is. But it cannot be a powerful energy source when its cold thin air slowly sinking. Rather than thick air slamming down. And if you having sinking air you have to account for its mysterious prior buoyancy. Which turns out to be very easy to account for.

    So I think we are down to electric and magnetic. We’ve grown up listening to NASA talking about powerful events on the sun. They always put these down to magnetism simply because they don’t understand what is happening on the sun, and they don’t understand magnetism either. So its a good fit for the public servants. Some theologians have their God-of-gaps and NASA has its magnetism of gaps. They fall to magnetism as an explanation also, because somebody made electrical energy Tapu sometime back. In mainstream science, you are only supposed to allow electricity if you cannot rule it out. I’ve never seen good evidence that magnetism can be used as a form of terrific energy storage, that can readily be converted to mechanical energy. But then someone else could bring up examples perhaps. In any case electricity and magnetism go together. Magnetic fields tend to be created by electrical currents but NASA and friends will forget about the horse and concentrate on the cart.

    So while we are down to only two. Really the standout is electricity. This can be stored in a capacitor. And I think the area above cloud level amounts to a gigantic capacitor. Free space is a capacitor also. But thin dry air is probably an even better capacitor than space. So what happens is you have this electrical energy buildup in space. Partly created by the solar wind. Then what happens is that the light from the sun hits our outer atmosphere and ionises the particles up there. The ionised gasses become good conductors of electricity. This helps funnel the electrical energy down to where there are few ionised particles left. This is our energy storage. But when this energy comes in contact with banks of clouds, it aligns the water molecules in such a way as they conduct a little bit also. It may even ionise some of these water molecules. And this is where the action that we call “the weather” really gets going. Well actually it gets started in impressive fashion somewhat above that level in the jet streams. The electrical energy wants to earth but cannot do so, hence all this horizontal power.

    If anyone is in denial about any of this they might want to revisit the list of energy sources again. For an alternative explanation.”

    If you think any of my comments are not good for your blog just wipe them. I’ll have them shadowed at my blog anyway. I don’t want to get in the way of your influence.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. I’m a big fan of the Electric Universe.
       I’ve only had one course in Electricity & Magnetism (I got an A), so I don’t feel comfortable discussing it in depth. I only know what I know and nothing else.

       I don’t think the aether should’ve been dropped.

       I don’t think Earth actually emits ~240 W/m^2 to space. A satellite in space, Yes. Space, NO! This distinction is very important.

       I’m babbling, lol

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. As an outsider you have a good instinct for these things. And your approach to getting across this subject was very much like mine back in 2005. The global warming fraud had come out with fantastic momentum. They were ruining careers left right and centre. No-one was a climate specialist and everyone was in a situation of fear and trembling. So even the guys we know now to be prominent skeptics were paralysed. They would focus on what you might call “points of order. ”

          You’d get a geologist too scared to ask why the sky was blue. Or a meteorologist who simply assumed that the ocean acidification was the gospel truth. So I came in under dozens of handles and I was trying to sort out the logic of it all. It was a secret war on my part, because I’d get banned and show up again under another name. But I bailed out in 2008. I’d seen enough and I lacked the skills to take things further. But I think I was a good person to be mucking it up with these guys back then. I cannot do anything now. Our guys have caught up on the easier stuff. So I have high hopes in you. Because you have a skill-set to take things further than I ever could.

          I checked on your earlier arguments. Same thing as me. If you didn’t understand something, and you knew these guys were somewhat wrong, you’d be trying to shame an answer out of them to help with your own understanding. Thats my interpretation anyway, because thats what I was doing. Its a beautiful thing to watch. And a very fast way to get across all topics. Sorry if I have misinterpreted your methodology. Your arguments remind me of mine 14 years or so ago.

          With the electricity stuff, I don’t think you ought to be too concerned. If you listen to someone like Eric Dollard you get the impression that the entire field of electricity itself, has been subject to the same control. So Dollard sees that the intellectual paternity coming down from the standard greats, but also Heaviside, JJ Thompson, Steinmetz and the fabled Tesla … apparently this theoretical paternity was sabotaged. And the modern theorist, non-practitioners, don’t really know what they are about either.

          Remember you don’t need to leave my comments up too long if you think they may hurt your efforts in doing so. Leave them up awhile. But they don’t need to be a forever thing.

          LikeLike

          Reply

       2. The idea to get across the electricity stuff is if you went back to principia under another name and started beating up on them. They’d catch you out a couple of times but you’d end up with a great working knowledge.

          LikeLike

          Reply

       3. You’ll like “Einstein Plus Two” by Petr Beckmann. It’s dense, but it’s thin.

          LikeLiked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. That looks interesting. I think Einstein is one of the most over-hyped mathematician “scientists” of all time. I doubt anything he ever said was true (or will turn out to be true) except when he was self-deprecating.

             LikeLike

    2. Radiant long wave energy is absorbed by ozone, heating the stratosphere. It’s the interaction zone between the stratosphere and the troposphere where the strongest winds are to be found. Ozone partial pressure increases in winter and with it the strength of the jet stream. There is assistance by way of an electromagnetic driver of the ionized atmosphere, solar dependent. At the winter pole the atmosphere rotates in the same direction as the Earth but faster. This acts to further energize polar cyclones and lower surface pressure.

       If you look at surface pressure across the globe, which reflects the strength of uplift, (and compensating downdraft) there is profound global low in surface pressure in the Antarctic trough that is sustained all year round. This dynamic drives an interchange in atmospheric mass between the southern half of the southern hemisphere and the rest of the globe, altering:
       1 the planetary winds
       2 the pole to equator temperature gradient
       3 ocean currents, and in particular the circumpolar current in the high latitudes of the southern hemisphere and the extent of the mixing of the cold polar water with tropical waters, and therefore the actual water surface temperature across the Pacific.
       4 the surface pressure in the mid latitudes that is related to albedo at these latitudes via cloud cover, and therefore the amount of solar insolation absorbed by the oceans at these latitudes, the greater volume by far in the Southern Hemisphere.

       To investigate this one has to have an interest in the geography and history of the atmosphere at all elevations. A study of the manner in which surface pressure has changed will set you on a path to discovery.

       In the process you will realize that the atmosphere is energized in high latitudes, not at the equator. That realization turns climate science on its head. You won’t get to these conclusions by being an expert in fluid dynamics.

       Great blog. Great discussion. Keep it up.

       LikeLike

       Reply

15. What I might do is I might start abusing all the skeptical sites. I might pick a fight using my electrical provocation as a kind of a club. I don’t really want to get into this rumble again, I lack the skills to take it further than I did before. But if I can start beating people up with undeniable stuff, a person with your superior abilities might be able to make something out of the chaos.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. I’ve been fighting on youtube for 2 years. Not interested. I’m interested in inspiring real scientists to take research into the direction I choose. I would like to permanently destroy greenhouse gas junk science, and return climate science back to its geothermal grounding.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. Yeah but you cannot really be successful if there is a secondary energy source that you are unwilling to deal with. That will always lazily be put down to greenhouse. Or suppose you put your small oblate infrared star idea out there? Not only do I think you are correct, but its kind of spooky that you came up with that. Its kind of a worry when you find someone so smart they are spooky. So there is a lot of roadblocks out there.

          For example Joanne blocked my electric provocation. And I suppose she was right to do so. I’m not knocking her even a little bit and I encourage you to go back and weed out a lot of my comments. Seriously I won’t protest at all.

          But if someone as solid as Joanne has to block something as undeniable as that. …… you can see that you have a lot of problems ahead of you. A lot of brick walls to knock your head against.

          LikeLike

          Reply

          1. My last comment at Joanne’s has been put into moderation. All I did was mention that downwelling longwave radiation is just upwelling-from-the-measurement-instrument radiation. Sigh.

             Oh well,
             First they laugh at you,
             Then they ban you,
             Then they smear you,
             Then they steal your ideas and claim it as their own,
             Then you won

             That’s kinda the first 5 years of my wall street career in a nutshell.

             LikeLike

          2. Don’t go too hard on her. As an Australian patriot she needs to protect the ‘credibility’ of her blog. So she moderates me pretty severely. More because of my bad behaviour than any powerful incisiveness on my part. But still the latter seems to become the priority now and then.

             As you become more popular you will also come under these sorts of pressures. As a humble request I hope you leave my comments up for a little while. But to maintain your blog goals you will need to go back and thin my comments out some.

             LikeLiked by 1 person

       2. “I would like to permanently destroy greenhouse gas junk science, and return climate science back to its geothermal grounding.”

          In the interests of not letting anyone trip you up in this goal …. Just keep in mind this here other provocation. Or you might get caught out. In addition to the example below, the column of water vapour will also be a channel for electrical energy and that may play a part:

          “A really good intellectual exercise would be to compare the heat retention implications for two different columns of air. The first is a column of water vapour saturated air, but without clouds. The second column of air is also water vapour saturated, and without clouds. But in the second column of air, the latent heat of evaporation is never latent. In the second column of air the latent heat is always 100% manifest in temperature.

          What would that do to the heat retention capabilities of water vapour saturated column of air? I think it would decimate it. Because the temperature might be 30 degrees higher. Which would cause the heat to rise. Plus the direction of thermal energy would change and the loss of thermal energy from the column would intsensify.

          So anyone who is taking this heat retention, and just reflexively saying “greenhouse effect” …. thats got to be looked at.”

          Make sure you are aware of this latent energy effect and the electrical conduction effect, or someone who watches how these cloud-free columns retain heat might be able to trip you up. It looks to them like its a greenhouse effect. Its not just WXCycles being dishonest here. This is what these experts are observing. So you need to be aware of alternative explanations.

          LikeLike

          Reply

16. Plot your temperatures against the ocean temperature and you will likely have the answer. The extra ocean is acting as a dampener and creating both milder summers and milder winters because you have more water included in your average temperature. Even on land, the area near water never gets as hot or as cold as land further away from water because the water never gets as cold or as hot as the land so it softens the temperature of the nearby land.

    LikeLike

    Reply

    1. Basically, the average water temp is always colder than the average land temp so it is pulling down the overall average.

       LikeLike

       Reply

       1. I tends to be the other way around John. The average temperature of the water is higher, since it holds it heat overnight.

          LikeLike

          Reply

17. Water is a cooling medium. In no case that I know of does the evaporation of water cause heating. No better illustration of this is your own human body, when it’s hot, it perspires as a cooling mechanism. The most efficient known to nature.
    I propose that “humidity” in the southern hemisphere is a large factor of the moderation in heating and cooling.
    H402 (common water) is heavier than air. The molecule expands when heated (or frozen) to many times its normal size making it more buoyant. (Clouds) Expanding its surface area allows water to give up its energy quickly, hence it’s efficiency a cooling medium. That’s why you’ve never heard of a “hot steam” balloon because it doesn’t work. Even though water is more buoyant, it requires a great deal of energy to keep it a loft because it cools so much faster.
    Larger landmass in the northern hemisphere, particularly Russia and Canada, are heavily forested and produce slightly less water vapor as compared to the ocean. This moderates their temperatures during the summer, but unlike the ocean, adds no heat in the winter causing extreme cold. A complex situation.
    The desert has very little water vapor and higher temperature. The westerly flow of air over the high Sierra Mountains dries out the air. As the air moves to the desert floor, it heats up 5.4° every thousand feet it flows down. (Day or night does not affect the Chinook winds heating mechanism) humidity, on the other hand, drastically changes the air temperature.
    I drive from 4000 feet to 8000 feet altitude on regular basis. It can be raining at 4000 feet, sleet at 6000 feet and a blizzard at 8000 ft. The horizontal distance is less than a mile, The heating mechanism of atmospheric pressure cannot be denied as the experiment can be reproducible over and over and over again. Not models, actual measurements.
    My brother lives near Saratoga Hot Springs. Snow melts quickly in the general location due to thermal earth heating. Houses near there only needing a circulating fan in the winter to move the hot air in the basement throughout the house averaging 60 to 80° year around. Despite the warm earth, open air temperatures are unaffected and unnoticed in that half mile area.
    The sand on miles of beach, or asphalt / concrete can be hot enough to burn your feet and still not raise the air temperature to an uncomfortable amount.
    You can put your arm into an oven at 500° without being burned, but you cannot do this with water. If you put your finger in front of the steam coming out of a teapot at 220°F you will get scolded/burned. 6 inches away it will be hot, 1 foot away and it will be warm. 2 feet away and that hot flow of steam will actually be cold!
    Yes, experimentation has shown that the feedback mechanism of humidity (water vapor) is the greatest moderating factor of earths climate.
    Carbon dioxide, by itself, is not a factor. At 4/100 of 1% of our atmosphere, there just isn’t enough of it. (One molecule out of every 2,500 molecules of air) When you combine water vapor, hydrogen sulfide, and CO2 all together to form a cloud… it will reflect all frequencies of the light spectrum. Including holding in/out the IR. (clouds don’t make heat, only slows its loss)
    Low pressure systems (storms) has lower air pressure which also has lower temperatures. Always lower temperatures just as high pressure are always warmer with more barometric pressure.

    LikeLike

    Reply

18. On the North and South hemispheres: back in the 1980s Bozone Terror, there was no place to look up the population of either hemisphere. So with atlases and the assumption that population was homogeneous in countries crossed by the equator, the resulting spreadsheet said that 1/9th or 11% of the population lives in the southern hemisphere, where I live most of the time. This is a lot like the iceberg buoyancy problem, which is a handy mnemonic.

    LikeLike

    Reply

19. This gets better! Thelma showed me old Hun, Turk and Nazi warships sticking up out of the Blue Danube like gangstas in Lake Mead. Remember the Ozone scare? Only 1/9 of humanity lives south of Equator. If water vapor is involved in the lake/river level difference, it makes northern falling lake and river levels less surprising is a forced oscillation is at work. Irrigation and industry scatter water where it evaporates. The Brewer-Dobson model from bomb test days shows that goes on in the Northern hemisphere stays mostly in the Northern hemisphere. But water vapor isn’t scary. I never believed the CO2 or Bozone shrieking, but water vapor is a plentiful GHG, and river and lake levels so seem to be dropping with no fakery required. Oh, in the 1940s they called it Dobson-Brewer circulation.

    LikeLike

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Visigothkhan. Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ