Gonzo Gonzalo and Cyclone Up, Vortex Down

I was exploring the fascinating visuals at nullschool.   Being the sort I am, I looked at, and saved, a full series of each hP step (roughly millibars) from surface, to 1000, to 850, then 700 and 500 and 250 and 70 and 10…  for each of temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, and currents in the ocean with temperatures and on…

You can see it here live:

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-104.74,48.09,251

Now I’d started because I wanted to see what a Hurricane looked like.  Especially how the winds around it sucked up all the surface heat.    You can see Gonzalo off to the lower right, about over Bermuda.

N. Hemisphere wind with Gonzalo

N. Hemisphere wind with Gonzalo

So that’s what I set out to do.  Look at the little wound up spot off the coast of Florida.   But what I noticed was those three much larger low pressure rotation zones up near the North edge of the oceans.    While rotating slower (so not in the news as a hurricane), they are sucking up way more total mass of air, and cooling far more ocean surface.    Also (it is easier to see in the live animation than this static picture, but look for the fatter ends on the wind lines to show direction of rotation):  The N. Polar vortex is visible in the middle of it all, rotating the other way.  (That matters… as it indicates heat up / cold down and out)

Now a polar vortex has descending cold air, thinks I…  and cyclones have rising hot air.   In between?   Wait a minute, I think:   We’ve got cyclones up and vortex down.   It’s a giant heat engine sucking the heat out of the surface, dumping it up high, and then shoving the frigid air back down again.  (Yes, it compression heats on the way back down, but only to about -15 C which nullshool shows you if you click on a spot on the surface in an animation).   So it can be -50 C or so at altitude, and heats up to damn cold at the surface.

Similarly, those surface cyclones are whipping up the ocean surface, mixing cold water to the surface, evaporating tons of water, lofting it to altitude where it condenses (and freezes) and falls as cold rain, hail, and snow.   Moving massive amounts of heat to above the troposphere.  You can even see the cold polar air mass drifting down over Canada and the USA bringing us a nice cold winter… in fall…

Note that nowhere in this story is radiative physics involved in the troposphere.  The only place IR radiation is doing anything at all is in the stratosphere.  And there, CO2 is a cooling agent, radiating heat to space.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with the AGW Global Warming theory.  It ignores all those giant cyclones, polar vortex, clouds, rain, snow, hail, ocean surface churning and cold water mixing.   All the dynamic ‘hard bits’ are ignored in favor of a ‘one size fits all’ infrared model.   So how much infrared warms you in a snow storm?  A hail storm?  During a downpour of rain?  At the pole with a frozen stratospheric funnel draining onto your head?   It just is not in the picture.

Speaking of which, some more pictures:

Gonzalo and Surface Temperatures

Gonzalo and Surface Temperatures

What fascinated me about this one was that Gonzalo did not show much surface cooling.  We know it happens by a degree or two, but not visible in this data.   Yet those larger cyclones are sitting right at the hot / cold interface and moving mass back and forth between them.  Picking up heat on the hot side, dumping it on the cold side.  (If you look at altitude slices, you can see the loft / descent happening too).

Gonzalo temp at 500 hP altitude with polar cold

Gonzalo temp at 500 hP altitude with polar cold

Half way up the atmosphere, things are colder, but the structure remains.  Cyclones up, vortex down, and warmer to colder bridging by those cyclones.   Gonzalo now barely shows up a at all.  As big as hurricanes are, they are small fry compared to major lows.

Gonzalo temps and the Stratosphere at 70 hP

Gonzalo temps and the Stratosphere at 70 hP

By the time we are at 70 hP (or mb) we are well into the stratosphere.  At this level, it is all cold polar vortex.   The intermediate layers (worth looking at, but a bit much to put in one posting) show the transition, and some of the changing directions and flow).   So here we have all the lofted air, radiating like mad to space, becoming incredibly cold, then going down the plug hole to the pole.    Notice that you can’t see the surface artifacts at all ( no cyclones, no surface IR making hot spots…)

Gonzalo wave and wind map with N. Atlantic Cyclone

Gonzalo wave and wind map with N. Atlantic Cyclone

Gonzalo is clearly a big deal, with 42 foot waves and low pressures.   But look at the low in the upper right.  30 foot waves.   And active over a much larger area.  What does all that do?  Maybe suck the heat right out?

SST Anomaly Ganzalo and N. Hemisphere Cyclones

SST Anomaly Ganzalo and N. Hemisphere Cyclones

Notice how those cold spots are very nearly under those large heat sucking cyclones.   Gonzalo not so much.  (Then again, getting data through a hurricane might be a bit hard

;-)

So that’s the thesis for this posting.   It isn’t at all about radiative physics.  The troposphere is all about circular air flows.  Cyclones up and vortex down.   All the radiation happens in the Stratosphere and above.   Now ask yourself:  With a sleepy sun putting out dramatically lower UV; so low that the thermosphere has shrunk and cooled, think maybe, just maybe that stratosphere ‘looking up’ has an easier time getting to space than back when the thermosphere was piping hot?   IMHO, that’s what the Warmers have missed. That their physics of radiation approach matters to the Stratopause, but not to the Tropopause.

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/tropopause-rules/

Subscribe to feed

 

 

 

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and Weather News Events, AGW Science and Background and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Gonzo Gonzalo and Cyclone Up, Vortex Down

  1. A C Osborn says:

    The other thing to notice is the Wind Speeds shown by NuSchool.
    They are not showing aything like the Hyped 140Mph Hurricane winds that NASA and MSM are using.
    I posted this over at WUWT on Anthony’s post on Gazola.
    I am beginning to wonder if we can believe these reports.
    Roy Spencer had a report of another 140Mph Hurricane last week

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/140-mph-typhoon-vongfong-approaches-okinawa/

    NuSchool’s Earth showed wind speeds of 120Kph, not Mph and low and behold when it hit land at “northern Mariana Islands on last Sunday, local time. Wind gusts over 89 kph (55 mph) and rainfall over 75 millimeters (3 inches) were common.””
    By the time it got to Okinawa it hardly made the news.

    Now we have NuSchool showing about 120Kph for “Hurricane” Gonzalo, if it too doesn’t show 100Mph+ winds then I think we may have another case of scare mongering like Typhoon Haiyan that hit the Phillippines which was “one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded”. But not according to a lot of other sources.

    That big low pressure area in mid Atlantic has winds only about 20Kph below Gonzalo.

  2. A C Osborn says:

    Since posting I see that the Mid Atlantic low’s winds seem to have slowed a bit and are now at around 70Kph, but the area is quite massive. Yesterday there was a second low developing on the south edge of the main low where the winds where higher than the main low, but today it seems to have disappeared.

  3. cdquarles says:

    Bingo, Chief. It takes a lot of energy to move all of that water and all of that air. Water is a fascinating substance. Do people not know that evaporation typically may involve dimers or trimers? Do people not know how strong hydrogen bonding is with water and how much hydrogen bonding contributes to hydration reactions and solvation reactions?

  4. cdquarles says:

    *er, trimers, WordPress, quit messing with perfectly good scientific terms.

    { Fixed it. -E.M.}

  5. Pingback: Gonzo Gonzalo and Cyclone Up, Vortex Down | Cli...

  6. adolfogiurfa says:

    BREAKING NEWS!!!
    DRAGON FAMILY NOW OWNS IMF & FEDERAL RESERVE!!!

  7. Hurricanes and Cyclones have being happening in the past, are happening now and will be happening in the future; nothing to do with the phony global warming

    Co2 has increased since the 90’s ”predictions” beyond anybodies expectation – not a sign of any GLOBAL warming – time to ask the Warmist to give the money back to the Urban Sheep they have being fleecing!

    Unfortunately, the ”Skeptics” invented the therm ”pause”…. There is no such a thing as ”pause” mates, just there isn’t any warming and will not be for million years. Laws of physics don’t permit warming of the ”whole” planet. Dear skeptics, admit that you have being duped by the Warmist and by Anthony Watts and forget about the phony ”pause”; – stop dreaming that the phony ”global” warming will show up, to confirm the pagan beliefs that the overall planet’s temp goes up and down as a yo-yo.. http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

  8. tom0mason says:

    Makes you wonder where all that air movement, and the energy to maintain it comes from? I didn’t see it in Kiehl and Trenberth’s energy balance cartoon. After all the atmosphere is in contant motion (relative to the ground) and air is everywhere above the surface of this planet.

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    Odd, when the south pole Ozone hole was “discovered” in the 1970s, the descending super cold polar vortex was known as the cause. Then the newly minted “Climate Scientists” erased that and glomed onto to an unproven theory that CFCs were the cause. The polar circulation model was dismissed as that was not important to them.. pg

  10. Paul_Somerset says:

    I’ve spent the last couple of days here in SW England working outside in a t-shirt thanks to the subtropical warmth drawn up by that huge Atlantic cyclone. Everyone recognizes the welcome warmth is due to the strong southerly winds.

    But … I wonder whether the Met Office scientists inside their offices down the road at Exeter will be aware of the reason for this anomalous autumn warmth when they examine the temperature records in future years. Or will the cause be CO2 on the basis of “What else could it be?” After all, the balancing cold descending over the North Pole won’t appear in the temperature record, as there are no thermometers there.

  11. Genghis says:

    The ocean absorbs solar insolation in the Tropics and Subtropics and cools primarily by evaporation and transport (currents, diffusion, Hadley cells, lows) to the higher latitudes.

    The real greenhouse effect is the oceans absorbing and retaining Solar insolation. Except for determining how much radiation from the sun is blocked by clouds from entering the ocean, radiation physics is a bit player.

    I think everyone here and anyone who has taken meteorology 101 knows this.

  12. gallopingcamel says:

    @Chiefio,
    “The only place IR radiation is doing anything at all is in the stratosphere. And there, CO2 is a cooling agent, radiating heat to space.”

    As usual you are right. CO2 and other gases that absorb in the thermal IR spectrum dominate heat transfer in the stratosphere. They have little influence on tropospheres where convection and phase changes dominate.

    In tropospheres, collision broadening kicks in so the radiative absorption caused by CO2 is proportional to the square of the total pressure. As a result the lower atmospheres of Venus and Earth are essentially opaque around 15 microns. This means that the concentration of CO2 has a tiny effect on tropospheres (where we live).

    Robinson & Catling have produced a radiative/convective model that conforms closely with observations for all seven bodies in the solar system with significant atmospheres. You will find that their equations degenerate to a temperature gradient equal to -g/Cp at high pressures. This temperature gradient is lower if vapors are present as on Earth and Titan:
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n1/abs/ngeo2020.html

    Recently I used engineering software (Quickfield) to verify Ashwin Vasavada’s model for lunar surface temperatures:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-new-lunar-thermal-model-based-on-finite-element-analysis-of-regolith-physical-properties/
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/extending-a-new-lunar-thermal-model-part-ii-modelling-an-airless-earth/

    Currently I am trying to use Quickfield to validate the Robinson & Catling model:
    http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/

  13. gallopingcamel says:

    @p.g.sharrow, 18 October 2014 at 7:06 am,
    It is interesting to compare the fate of the Montreal Protocol that was based on the work of people like McElroy with the Kyoto Protocol that relied on Mann and his buddies.

    The Montreal Protocol essentially banned the productioin of Freon and similar compounds based on the prediction that this would reduce the size of the polar “Ozone Holes”. After the ban went into effect the size of the ozone holes diminished. This may mean that the science presented by McElroy and his cohorts was “Robust” or it may be dumb luck. Either way, McElroy has credibility and “Skeptics” like you and I are ridiculed.

    When the Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 1994 it committed the nations signing it to:
    “…..reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below existing 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.”

    The Kyoto Protocol says:
    “The Parties included in Annex I shall strive to implement policies and measures under
    this Article in such a way as to minimize adverse effects, including the adverse effects of climate
    change,”

    The Protocol fails to explain what the adverse effects of climate change are but given that the year was 1994 and the IPCC was the only “Scientific” authority cited in the protocol it seems safe to assume that failure to limit CO2 emissions was expected to result in “Catastrophic Global Warming”.

    The Kyoto Protocol required a reduction of ~5% in 2012 relative to 1990. The 1990 emissions of CO2 were 22.5 billion tonnes so the target was 21.4 billion tonnes by 2012. Actual emissions in 2012 were 33.5 billion tonnes, equivalent to a 49% increase over 1990 levels.

    Given the failure to meet Kyoto targets we should be noticing an uptick in global temperatures. Satellite measurements show that temperatures rose 0.25 Kelvin from 1990 to 1998 but have not risen since.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

  14. ren says:

    Weak polar vortex allows air to flow over the polar circle. A denser air increases the pressure in the troposphere. Wherein winter and summer will be different effect.
    Waves of air in the stratosphere, while the forcing the circulation in the troposphere through the jet stream.
    Polar vortex just getting started.
    A strong polar vortex blocks inside the very cold air. Over America will be weak.

  15. E.M.Smith says:

    Interesting point…maybe a Kyoto retrospective is in order…

  16. E.M.Smith says: ”maybe a Kyoto retrospective is in order”

    Smith, if you can dig the newspapers from 95- 99 (around Kyoto conference) – they were ALL ”predicting” global warming by 5-6C, by year 2060 – then they shifted it to 2100. BUT, from 5-6C going down to 2C is much more, than from 2C down to zero, which will be predicted in few years. Anyway, if you can find some newspapers records from 95-99, you can rub the Warmist noses with that.
    Warmist Are the New White Collar Criminals (NWCC)…

  17. gallopingcamel says: “The only place IR radiation is doing anything at all is in the stratosphere. And there, CO2 is a cooling agent, radiating heat to space.”

    Please let me correct you: what you are saying, is lyrics created by the Warmist, galuble Skeptics to use… The truth: the only time CO2 goes into the ”stratosphere” is during nuclear explosion, or big volcano eruption, and it doesn’t stay in the stratosphere for more than few days, CO2 is a ”tropospheric” gas.

    2] Gases don’t ”radiate” heat out of the atmosphere. CO2 doesn’t ”radiate” heat for more than few microns; it is the oxygen &nitrogen that collect heat from any warmer object and (especially from the ground) are taking it up, in the upper troposphere where the air is very thin and are releasing the heat to be ”neutralized” by the unlimited coldness there. Therefore: ”radiating heat for long distances is crap! Long-wave radiation doesn’t go far, only for new microns. You people can only defeat the new white collar criminals, WITH THE TRUTH, not by singing their lyrics!!!

  18. gallopingcamel says: ”Recently I used engineering software (Quickfield) to verify Ashwin Vasavada’s model for lunar surface temperatures”

    :gallopingcamel and Chiefio, permit me to correct you guys: Warmist using the CO2 on the earth, to compare why the moon is colder = the misleading is made for confusion! Noticing the minuscule amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere is clever Warmist trick for Anthony Watts mushrooms…

    Disregarding the four real different factors, it works BUT, here are the four different factors for the secular skeptics:
    #1: earth has geothermal heat, that heat is constantly released into the sea and in the atmosphere, nothing of that on the moon.
    #2: earth has 30km thick blanket of oxygen &nitrogen, which lets the sunlight trough, because is transparent, but: as perfect insulators, those two gases slow down cooling – on the moon the unlimited coldness of minus -95C (-139F) is touching the ground!
    #3: on the earth 2/3 of the surface is covered by water – water is warmed and cooled slower than surface – therefore: on the earth the oceans serve as shock absorbers, no extreme between day and night…. It’s tragic that the Skeptics cannot believe me that: on the earth is a lot of oxygen, nitrogen and lots of water; but are buying the Warmist bull that the earth has only CO2…

    #4: the most important: the moon travels twice as fast trough that ”cold nothingness” orbiting the sun, than the earth (because the moon simultaneously must orbit around the earth and together with the earth around the sun). It’s same as when you travel at the back of an pick up truck on the very cold night – when you travel at 50kmh you cool less than at 100kmh.(earth and moon travel in orbit at -95C (-139F)
    Because that ”cold nothingness doesn’t have friction or gravity – the earth and the moon cannot take with them that ”warmed cold nothingness” instead, at different speed they travel trough it.into new one all the time

    Reason you are scared to read my posts / real proofs that can put the leading Warmist in jail, is because the ”Skeptics” are scared themselves from the real truth… repeating the Warmist lyrics, only makes the Warmist more rich and powerful; they are only scared from real proofs!

  19. Note that a warmer stratosphere lowers tropopause height and a colder stratosphere raises it.

    Ozone with its direct warming by incoming solar energy causes the temperature inversion at the tropopause which puts a lid on convection from below.

    Ozone declines above the poles when the sun is active which means that the stratosphere cools above the poles and the tropopause at the poles rises.

    That is what then causes zonal jets and a poleward shift of climate zones.

    The opposite when the sun is inactive.

  20. “their physics of radiation approach matters to the Stratopause, but not to the Tropopause.”

    That is a good way of looking at it.

    If the radiative balance between stratopause and space becomes unbalanced so that the stratosphere warms or cools then the convective balance between surface and tropopause changes to negate it by warming or cooling the stratosphere in an equal and opposite direction.

  21. Genghis says:

    Stephen Wilde,

    You have a few things backwards,

    “Ozone declines above the poles when the sun is active which means that the stratosphere cools above the poles and the tropopause at the poles rises.”

    Actually Ozone increases in the summer, it is created by UV hitting the O2 molecules. The hole grows in the winter when the O3 isn’t being created.

    “Ozone with its direct warming by incoming solar energy causes the temperature inversion at the tropopause which puts a lid on convection from below.”

    Convection is adiabatic, it doesn’t “warm’ the surrounding air, rather it expands the air parcel. That is why it rises. Heat doesn’t ‘rise’ it goes in all directions. The only ‘lid’ is the limit on the how much the latent heat can expand the gas.

  22. E.M.Smith says:

    @Stephanthedenier:

    Don’t know what you think I’ve gotten wrong, as much of what you posted was not related to anything I stated… The rest is a bit hard to follow since you freely mix some technical beliefs, without much backing, with political attitude (so sorting what is what is, er, an issue).

    One point does stand out, though: You assert the moon is traveling twice the speed of the earth. (And imply this somehow matters). As we are both in a hard vacuum, the speed does nothing. Also note that the moon / earth system is a dual planet system. At no time does the moon go retrograde in its orbit. Lunar average orbital speed is the same as earth (for all practical purposes). It only ‘orbits’ the earth in that we periodically change who is in front.

  23. E.M.Smith says: Stephanthedenier: Don’t know what you think I’ve gotten wrong”

    Obviously you are referring to my comment i posted regarding the ”galopingcamel” (wander why he is so scared to reply himself…?)

    Smith, you are saying: ”You assert the moon is traveling twice the speed of the earth”

    YES! the moon orbits around the earth 13 times in a calendar year, b] the moon doesn’t jump in front and behind the earth – when is full moon, she is behind the earth – new moon, she is in front of the earth (actually on the side of the sun) BUT, there are TWO half moons in a lunar cycle. = moon is ”orbiting around the earth 13 times a year at great distance = that is lots of millions of km that the earth doesn’t have to do!

    2] I don’t ever use ”political or fanatic’s beliefs” what the two camps are doing. What I state, all can be proven here and now! I don’t use ”guessing”, as the Warmist use / I don’t use the skeptic’s pagan beliefs from the past…. Only real proofs what I have, can put the leading Warmist in jail. Read y posts, if you don’t suffer from ”truth phobia” and you will see
    cheers!!!

  24. Stephen Wilde commented: ”If the radiative balance between stratopause and space becomes unbalanced so that the stratosphere warms or cools then the convective balance between surface and tropopause changes to negate it by warming or cooling the stratosphere in an equal and opposite direction”

    Stephen, permit me to correct you:-” nothing warms up the ”stratosphere” that song comes from the Warmist, and is WRONG! Stratosphere is always at minus -90C (130F) in the ”stratosphere” are only ozone, helium and some aerosol gases – they orbit around the earth never come to the ground and don’t influence the lower troposphere temp.

    On the other hand; oxygen & nitrogen by going up and down when warmed / cooled are regulating the overall temp
    The hotter it gets on the ground -> the faster the ”vertical winds (O&N)” become. They collect the heat from the ground -> as warmed up / trying to expand in one atmosphere pressure – instead of that, they zoom up and go up where the air pressure is too low-> expand and release the heat-> shrink and come down for more (they work in the atmosphere SAME as the gases in the refrigerators). You singing the Warmist lyrics, will not scare the Warmist… instead may give them hernia from too much laughter…?

    the truth: all the heat created on the earth is neutralized / canceled inside the ”troposphere” The ”cold nothingness” penetrates into the troposphere and is neutralizing all the heat: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/

  25. tom0mason says:

    Just a little observation, leaving aside things like electron spin orbitals, and stability of electron shells, etc.; at the basics, as far as I understand it, e/m radiation is just packets of energy as waves.
    Heat, on the other hand, is the interaction of e/m radiation on matter, causing receptive atoms and molecules to vibrate in the matter. Restated, this is radiant energy being transformed to kinetic energy when it interacts with receptive matter particles.
    Also some matter can absorb the e/m radiation a one frequency and after a very short time re-radiate it at a different frequency (a lower, less energetic one). The difference in energy levels is, in the main, the vibrational (kenitic) energy used.
    Or am I wrong?
    Also is this the same idea as the light from a fluorescent light bulb were ultra-violet energy (from excited mercury atoms) is transformed by the chemical coatings on the inside of the bulb to lower energy visible light? If this is so where is the back radiation in the bulb?

  26. wildeco2014 says:

    stefan,

    The stratosphere is warmed by the ozone layer absorbing incoming solar energy directly.

    Hence the inversion at the tropopause putting a lid on tropospheric convection.

    Change the temperature of the stratosphere and you change the height of the tropopause which does affect convection in the troposphere.

    The rest of your post about the convective response in the troposphere is largely correct.

  27. E.M.Smith says:

    @Stephanthedenier:

    Um, you have a common error caused by your point of view on the moving earth. See this image:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_trajectory1.svg

    that shows the actual lunar motion about the sun. It is not a series of curly ques… Then read the section here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Path_of_Earth_and_Moon_around_Sun

    and particularly note:

    In representations of the Solar System, it is common to draw the trajectory of the Earth from the point of view of the Sun, and the trajectory of the Moon from the point of view of the Earth. This could give the impression that the Moon circles around the Earth in such a way that sometimes it goes backwards when viewed from the Sun’s perspective. Since the orbital velocity of the Moon about the Earth (1 km/s) is small compared to the orbital velocity of the Earth about the Sun (30 km/s), this never occurs. There are no rearward loops in the Moon’s solar orbit.

    Considering the Earth–Moon system as a binary planet, its centre of gravity is within the Earth, about 4,624 km from its centre or 72.6% of its radius. This centre of gravity remains in-line towards the Moon as the Earth completes its diurnal rotation. It is this mutual centre of gravity that defines the path of the Earth–Moon system in solar orbit. Consequently the Earth’s centre veers inside and outside the orbital path during each synodic month as the Moon moves in the opposite direction.

    Unlike most moons in the Solar System, the trajectory of the Moon around the Sun is very similar to that of Earth. The Sun’s gravitational effect on the Moon is more than twice that of the Earth’s on the Moon; consequently, the Moon’s trajectory is always convex (as seen when looking Sunward at the entire Sun–Earth–Moon system from a great distance outside the Earth/Moon solar orbit), and is nowhere concave (from the same perspective) or looped.

    The moon orbital speed is almost identical to that of the Earth. We BOTH orbit the sun in about the same time. We do alternately speed up a little and slow down a little so that it looks like the moon is going around the earth, but it isn’t. We are changing relative lead / lag in our mutual race around the sun.

  28. E.M.Smith says: ”We do alternately speed up a little and slow down a little so that it looks like the moon is going around the earth, but it isn’t”

    Mr. Smith, you are wrongly interpreting what your Wikipedia says: A] yes, the part that: ”the earth and the moon orbit around the sun together, that part is correct BUT, you must be the only person on the planet not to believe that: ” the moon is simultaneously ”ORBITING” around the earth B] the guys in Wikipedia are stating few times that ”the moon is orbiting around the earth (this is from them) : ”When viewed from the north celestial pole, i.e. from the star Polaris, [[[[[the Moon orbits the Earth]]]]] anticlockwise, the Earth orbits the Sun anticlockwise, and the Moon and Earth rotate on their own axes anticlockwise

    2] it’s same as: you and your friend are running outside, but around of your town anticlockwise, BUT ”SIMULTANEOUSLY” your friend is also running around you at a big distance – when is running on your right side, appears that he is running faster than you and he gets in-front of you, but then he continues.to run around you on your LEFT side and until he gets behind you = appears that he is going into ”retrograde” even though you both are running forward together (that ”retrograde” expression is used by horoscope people about other planets, because they read the sky as two-dimensional – but with the moon is completely different story)

    3] your Wikipedia ”astronomers” are wrong on two things A] they use ”the moon axis” – the moon doesn’t have ”axis” the moon is NOT spinning around itself – always same side of the moon is facing the earth, the earth has axis, not the moon!. B] they say that: ”the moon orbits the earth 12 times in a year” YES the moon ”orbits around the earth” BUT not 12 times, it’s 13 times = so they are wrong; here is to see for yourself why: one lunar cycle / ORBIT around the earth takes 27,5 days – if you multiply 27,5 BY 13 = that will be about a year. (even though your experts are wrong on those two things – read again what they say and you will see that: they acknowledge that: ”the moon is orbiting around the earth”’ (laddie’s menstrual cycle is controlled by the ”moon’s orbit around the earth”

    4] what ”they” are trying to say and confuses you, is: -” when is a solar eclipse – the shadow from the moon most of the time is not on the earth’s equator – sometimes the shadow falls on N/H, other times on the S/H”’ Come to think of it; because the moon gets every month in-between the earth – sun, most of the time is even no eclipse = the moon gets a bit higher than the line drown between earth’s equator and the sun. But that only proves that the moon is drunk, because is not orbiting in a strict circle around the earth. B] example: if you tide up a bolt or nut on 1m string and start spinning it around itself -> the nut / which represents the moon; will be lifted by the centrifugal force and sometime the nut will be on the level of your knees (S/H) other times on level of your belly button (the equator), sometime at the level of your chest (N/H) and you can even spin it higher than your head – because you represent the earth – if somebody was pointing light with a torch at you (torch represents the sun) -> the moon would have being making shadow on you on different places at different eclipses.

    5] another example hope will be enough: imagine the axle on your car is the earth – the rubber on your tire is the orbit of the moon – draw a circle with a chalk on the tread of the tire / to represent the moon – when you start moving the car; the axle and the ”chalk circle / the moon” will go forward together BUT, as the tire spins, that ”chalk circle / the moon” .will appear that is moving forward, in relation to the axle; when is on part of the tire that is above the axle – but when it ends up as part when is below the level of the axle and when touching the ground = it appears that Chalk circle moves ”retrograde” in relation to the axle, But not in relation to that tree far away that represents the sun. I hope what I said is of some assistance to you. Cheers!!!

  29. wildeco2014 says: ”stefan The stratosphere is warmed by the ozone layer absorbing incoming solar energy directly”

    wilde, don’t you think that: the more UV &IR is intercepted by the ozone in the stratosphere – (where cooling is MUCH MORE effective at minus -90C, than close to the ground) in that case a bit LESS UV&IR comes to the ground => less heat is produced on the ground?!?!?! (I had many disagreements on similar subject, with both camps)which was; isn’t it better when CO2 intercepts some UV&IR radiation high up, where cooling is more efficient – as ”shade-cloth effect”’ => LESS UV &IR comes to the ground?! What’s wrong with that?.

    2] you say:”The rest of your post about the convective response in the troposphere is largely correct”

    Wilder; what you refer as ”your post” I presume that you refer .to the ”comment” I made here… OR are you referring about ”my post on my blog”?
    I would like to ask you sincerely: would you like to read my post, with critical eye – as a ”Peer review”
    Because I’ve completely different aprouch about cooling, than both camps => if I’m correct – I have enough proofs that can be proven now / not to wait 100y – which means: if leading Warmist are put on a witness stand, under oath – where they must answer the questions -> the Warmist cult can get ”involuntary euthanasia” in less than a year.
    Please read my post that’s ”on my blog”

  30. Ben Vorlich says:

    With regard to Earth/Moon orbits are we talking something like this?

    http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2006/janus-epimetheus-swap.html

  31. Peter Taylor says:

    A question in my mind…..it appears that meteorologists have reason to conclude that the patterns of the Jetstream are a consequence of things coming up from the surface – its loops and waves affected by lows and highs – or vortices (not that they often use that word) moving mass up or carrying it down. Some time ago I tried to discover whether the upwelling mass was linked by some kind of ‘channel’ to the downgoing mass – and whether the ribbon like contortions of the Jetstream itself could be forming the vortices – that is: a top-downward generation of the pattern of cyclonic and anticyclonic activity. I would love to see some 3D maps of atmospheric air masses – does anyone know a source?

  32. E.M.Smith says:

    @Ben Vorlich:

    Yes. The physics is the same, but the actual numbers are a bit different.

    For Luna and Earth, they both orbit the Sun in about 1 earth year. During that time, Luna and Earth change who is “in front’ about 13 times. We speed up (and move further from the sun) and the moon slows down (and moves closer to the sun) and then it reverses. We slow down and Luna speeds up. We drop closer to the Sun and Luna moves further out. Swapping who is in front.

    But all that time, the moon NEVER goes retrograde. It is ALWAYS orbiting the Sun in a concave orbit. As are we. From a point in space above both of us, it looks like we are swapping who is in front and who is closest / furthest from the Sun, but NEVER does the moon go backward in orbit to loop around us. It is only from our point of view that the moon seems to rotate around us. We both move at about 1 solar orbit / year. The velocity difference between the two of us is actually quite low.

    StephanTheDenier is dramatically wrong, but I don’t have the time, inclination, nor energy to teach him/her how wrong or how to see the truth. Oh Well. I can only offer what is true, and it is up to others to see it and accept it.

  33. Ben Vorlich says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    He could always read that link it explains it quite clearly, or it was clear to me.

  34. p.g.sharrow says:

    @EMSmith; I guess the concept that the Luna/Earth are a binary pair that orbit a common point as well as the sun is just too complex a concept for some to accept. The orbital speed of the pair around the sun is much higher, 29.78 Km/sec, then their rotation around that common point,1.022Km/sec.
    The Moon does not orbit the Earth, They dance while they orbit the Sun. pg

  35. p.g.sharrow says: ”The Moon does not orbit the Earth, They dance while they orbit the Sun”

    Why the rest of the world knows that you are wrong; here is what they say, learn why the sun is illuminating different sides of the moon and we can see a fool moon, a new moon AND two half moons every 28days – see their color picture especially why on the first half moon is illuminated one side and on the second half is illuminated the OTHER half, by the sun: .Google: ” Orbit of the Moon” – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  36. p.g.sharrow says:

    I have seen blue moons, I have seen red moons. I have seen new moons and full moons. I ain’t never seen a fool moon. ;-)
    Actually I read the Wiki entry on the moon’s orbit while creating the above entry.
    I really don’t care what you think about astrophysics dynamics or weather circulation cause and effect.
    But sometimes I do find you entertaining. Have a nice day. 8-) pg

  37. Hagar says:

    Can see why the brits are always talking about the weather!

Comments are closed.