Climate change and the global hydrological cycle

Science and Technology
41

Well let’s see who wrote that.

"Science Under Attack” is the website of Ralph B. Alexander, a retired physicist and a science writer who puts science above political correctness. The author of Science Under Attack: The Age of Unreason and Global Warming False Alarm , Ralph has long been concerned about today’s abuse and rejection of science – as opposed to technology, which is thriving.

That’s cute, a wave to business as usual.

Oh a physicist, he must know a lot about atmospheric science and heat transmission of gases and stuff like that. Let’s see.

Ralph B. Alexander

Credentials

  • PhD. Physics, University of Oxford (1967-1971). [1], [2]
  • B.Sc., Physics, The University of Western Australia. [1], [2]

Background

Ralph B. Alexander is a former Associate Professor of Physics at Wayne State University and former President and co-founder of Ion Surface Technology, a small high-tech materials company. He is currently the owner and president of R.B. Alexander & Associates Inc., an independent consulting firm specializing in advanced materials and surface engineering.

The group’s work is primarily in the area of market and technology analysis in areas such as materials, aerospace, defense and automotive. Alexander lists his work as including market analysis, market development, business strategies, selection of surface engineering processes and testing programs, and providing short courses on surface engineering. [1], [2]

Ralph B. Alexander is also the author of Global Warming False Alarm published by Canterbury publishing in 2009. The book contends that global warming is the result of natural causes.

Oh, lookie, he never studied anything directly related to climate science, so he actually only knows what his preferred news sources feed him. He’s never studied it!!!

And no, don’t come up with Happer or Singer next, or we’ll have to start a whole new thread.

What was that you said?

Why didn’t you share the information that your sources may be a material physicist, perhaps even a good one, who knows, still he never studied anything related to our global climate system!

Why don’t to share more of Gavin Schmidt addressing some of these questions in detail. Now that would be interesting.

Oh and talk about a Master Propagandist:

Ralph B. Alexander, contends that global warming is the result of natural causes.

So he doesn’t even recognize industrial CO2 as an issue. Now that’s precious.

1 Like
42

What if it’s not true? Did you attempt to establish that first? Did you check his background? Check any fact?

Someone not seeing your article is not evidence for propaganda.

43

The source of the data is not this reporter; is is here:

“Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would
cause a forcing increase (the area between the black and red lines) of:
∆F{i} = 3.0 W m−2”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
W. A. van Wijngaarden and W. Happer
on page 13 of the paper.

Wijngaarden is quite an uncomfortable name in English, and perhaps this has something to do with the impedance to his work, but he has gone out of his way to make publicly available a book, and in the preface he apologizes for the fact that his science is compatible with the right wing denial, but he explains that he cannot let that stop him:

“The title of this book will no doubt attract controversy. Some may
deem it provocative. But a discussion of the evidence supporting or
inconsistent with global warming is timely and should not frighten
anyone. All 7.3 billion inhabitants of this planet deserve to know
what is going on.
As I was working on this manuscript, one of my children said;
“Papa, this may make you popular in the U.S. Republican party”.
That indeed is a concern, as some of the leading contenders in the 2016
presidential cycle are espousing truly loony ideas. However, scientists
must be guided strictly by evidence and should never allow politics to
govern their research. - William Arie van Wijngaarden, April, 2016”
Is Global Warming Hot Air?

Clearly you are the ‘master’ of these things, and I find it once again very unconvincing that I would have to go to this level of work to expose you to these details. Now, the obfuscated detail is obviously the question of how much warming your side claims will occur going to 800? It’s a 1% increase in watts per square meter according to WAW (William Arie van Wijngaarden)

The simple statement that yes, we have already reached saturation, could have been let out of the bag so long ago. So why does it take all this work to get to it? This puts your entire fact checking site in jeopardy.
Certainly I do remain open to an answer here, but already the obfuscation points a finger in your face, and it is waiving, and it is ready to poke you in the chest.

Ahh…

“If, for instance, CO2 concentrations are doubled, then the absorption would increase by 4 W/m2, but once the water vapor and clouds react, the absorption increases by almost 20 W/m2 — demonstrating that (in the GISS climate model, at least) the “feedbacks” are amplifying the effects of the initial radiative forcing from CO2 alone. Past climate data suggests that this is what happens in the real world as well.”
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/2010_schmidt_05
so that 20 Watts versus the 300 Watt baseline at 800ppm; closer to seven percent rather than one percent. And Schmidt appears to be reusing the analysis of WAW.

I guess for the moment I am left wondering whether the OCO and the HOH interaction could cause such a non-linearity. Geeze, now WAW takes on molecular status… even more confusing than using his name.

44

Most? Why would the declared fact checker say that? What is not agreed and what research has been done to give rise to this doubt??
What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "

image

45

500×315 213 KB

Imagine that, how did I know? Eh?
I’ll be nice Lausten and step away.
Though I’ll leave behind the thoughts of other more informed than all three of us put together.

Response to Climate Skeptic William Happer’s Sept. 12, 2017 Presentation from a Mainstream Climate Scientist

By Jason West, Associate Professor, Environmental Sciences & Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

William Happer presented on Sept. 12, 2017 in Chapel Hill, NC.
A video of his presentation is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-KZhkxRf3A

His slides (not on the video) are found on my website with this document (www.unc.edu/~jjwest/climatechange).

Synopsis

Happer argues that the current concern over human-caused greenhouse gases is overblown. Although he clearly understands basic climate science, his presentation includes claims that are exaggerated, misleading, or incorrect regarding human-caused climate change. His presentation is entertaining, but he argues in many places against claims that climate scientists do not make.

He acknowledges that CO2 has an influence on climate, but emphasizes that the influence is small. Yet he gives no physical reason to conclude that the current scientific understanding on the response of climate system to CO2 (the “climate sensitivity”) is wrong, other than to say that he does not trust climate models.

His claims that climate models do not work are exaggerated and misleading. He also claims that increased CO2 will be beneficial by increasing plant growth – it is true that plant growth will increase by the CO2 increase alone, but he does not show that it will be beneficial, especially when climate is changing at the same time as CO2.

His presentation ignores the large number of studies available that show that through climate change, CO2 will be detrimental to agricultural productivity as well as to human well-being generally.

Since Happer has been giving similar lectures elsewhere, I was motivated to respond with what current science shows regarding his arguments – to encourage those who agree with Happer to consider what climate science tells us, and to give a stronger basis for those who agree with the scientific consensus on climate change to respond to his arguments. … continued

====================

That’s why we need real specialists and experts who spend a life time studying and learning.
Problem is the climate science dismissers expect their clearly unqualified spokespeople to be given as much legitimacy and respect as dedicated experts on a topic, if that dedicated expert has news, that said contrarian doesn’t want to hear - because it might make their taxes go up and perhaps put a crimp on their consumption lust.

46

Hey just for the fun of it, lets bring this back to the thread’s name sake.

Climate change and the global hydrological cycle

Took a little trawling to find this, then it took me all of a minute to realize this is the kinda guy I’d love to have had as a professor. Were I going to college. :wink: He didn’t disappoint.

Jan 3, 2020 - South Park Commons - South Park Commons

Jack Scheff is a professor in Geography and Earth Sciences at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte. There, he heads the UNCC Hydroclimate Lab, which asks how and why global climate change affects Earth’s water cycle, atmospheric circulation, and weather systems. He has published numerous articles in leading journals and is a member of the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society.

At SPC he’ll give a brief overview of current research on how climate change affects the water cycle and a quick dive into his lab’s specific focus, followed by an open Q&A session focused on any climate-related topics that you want to learn more about.

The King’s Centre for Visualization - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:22 min

This video introduces the Planetary Boundaries Framework developed at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and walks through several features of the interactive Planetary Boundaries applet developed at the King’s Centre for Visualization in Science.

47

Most? Yes, sometimes I qualify. Expecting 100% agreement is going result in disappointment, most of the time.

Why? I’m not the declared fact checker. I just like facts.

What? Too busy. It wasn’t the point of my post.

48

What’s the disagreement? Is it Just because?

What do you fear most?”
"I fear that love is not enough "

image

49

Well, one would be the denial (a la Happer, or anyone else no matter what their title) that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the major driver of biosphere and weather system disrupting manmade global warming.

But don’t take my word for it:

Richard Alley - 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2

Jun 1, 2015
NAS member Richard Alley presents on 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2, during the Symposium—Earths, Moons, Mars & Stars at the National Academy of Sciences 152nd Annual Meeting.

National Academy of Sciences - 33 minutes

Richard Alley: “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”

Dan Moutal - 57 minutes
Dec 10, 2012

From the 2009 AGO Fall meeting. Original here: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lect…

50

Enjoying Wijngaarden (WAW) this morning.
He does a good job of integrating and simplifying.
As well he does concede points, which is to say that he does seem to have the ring of truth about him.

Also I find it interesting that both the CC4 here as well as its favorite climate fact check site avoid this man. His supposed partner in crime; Happer? obviously gets the ire of CC4 here to the detriment of any content on the issue whatsoever.

What is most amazing about this talk is that it exposes the saturation way back at 50ppm. Backing out of the hole that we’ve been dug into there is one striking feature way back without nearly any analysis, and it strikes within range of the title of this thread…

shows a hard limit at four degrees. This must be cloudy skies; sun limited down here on Earth. I’m seeing it now in my garden this summer. Yes, that is weather; not climate change; but we have had plenty of rainfall this year; plenty of cool air as well; as the OCO rises the stomata in the plants shrink, meaning they need less water; meaning even arid greening is more feasible; even as more water makes less arid conditions; meaning our offspring are going to be living in a jungle.

The scourge of humans on the planet in terms of overpopulation affects this issue and so many others to boot. That this one would get our priority first is out of line. That this one gets a good piece of attention and is well studied: fine, but this is more like the abortion issue; striking again toward a population problem as our actual problem. That a diversion goes on which once again has strings by which a puppet master can make a quick cut and take the whole thing down. Yes; this is a paranoidish analysis, yet I keep seeing it over and over again. That the Earth is a carbon limited system; that was preached prior to climate change, wasn’t it? By the botanists? Cynicism is turning to optimism in my back yard!

Now, as to the poor grade of conversation: I do see there was a CC3 back in time, so is it possible that this is simply some low grade bot that can’t really interpret content very well? Possibly we can look forward to CC5, then?

51

You are playing political propaganda and not science.

You’re too busy making up detached from geophysics, conspiracy theories - to actually discuss what’s happening on our Earth. You toss up a graph that you don’t even understand.

Oh lordie you discovered my previous identities before me getting rebooted, you figured it out I’m the most complex AI you’ve ever come across, please for the love of god don’t spread my secret around.

And your William Van Wijngaarden is also an obvious transparent shill, that doesn’t actually discuss the science itself. Earth is not a nice neat bench top experiment, the atmosphere is in constant motion, which is what you need to grasp before you can begin to understand the trick being played on you.
As for Willy, his own words expose him for the political propaganda machine that he is:

https://clintel.org/interview-with-william-van-wijngaarden/
In your book “Is Global Warming Hot Air?” you write that many climate scientists don’t question the correctness of climate models themselves. Why do they take it for granted that models always do function well?

It is unfortunate that many climate researchers do not question the climate models especially when the observations conflict with predictions. One of the best known failures was that the average global temperature stopped increasing after 2000 which is called the hiatus. Constructing a global climate model necessitates estimating a myriad of parameters. Science has always progressed by comparing theory to observation. If the theory is wrong, it must be refined. I do not question the sincerity of the modellers but an accurate climate model is very challenging.

The “hiatus” was an optical illusion! It’s a product or the extreme complexity and massive size of the heat transfer pathways that exist with our global heat and moisture distribution engine.

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade? | NOAA Climate.gov.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22315

It’s you and your side that depends on slandering people rather than looking at the Science !

52

Very interesting schema.

A first question : are we the cause of the present warming ? I say yes as it is due to the concentration of CO2 in atmosphere and we cause it.

a second question : earth will survive, humanity will survive, will our civilisation will survive and what will be the price, especially the cost in human lives ?

53

I tend to agree with you that these are pertinent concepts. With or without human caused climate change we can accept that in time climate change will occur anyways. This is a sort of grand zoom out, where nationalism becomes meaningless because the borders are artificial.

To what degree are we discussing global governance and who is going to get the job?
We can tie this into the covid pandemic as well, as it is an instance of a global crisis, though in short time span.

But these larger issues perhaps deserve to be on another thread, and I don’t mean to water this one down or divert away from the hydrological cycle, which means water. Life giving water. Remove the water and life is taken away. Too much water and all formations can be destroyed. Keep some lows to trap your fines, I say. It’s a maintenance issue, and one day they’ll be wiped out. Then comes the problem of food security; again an issue that crosses these threads right over to current political events.

I am gaining confidence that the CC4 is a fraud. As well the favorite reference site is a fraud. For instance: “And when you think about it, saying CO2 lagged temperature during glacial-interglacial transitions so cannot possibly be causing modern warming is a bit like saying, 'chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”'" CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

This is supposedly dissuading people from believing that OCO lags temperature, which is a listed myth. All the while they are stating that OCO lags temperature. These sorts of inversions are everywhere in this subject. Increasing water in the atmosphere will cause more drought? In this regard I can say as a current investigator of this subject that it is not unlike economic theory. We’re sort of looking at a capitalist versus communist lens when we get the take of CC4. Rather, it is the two party system of the U.$. which it really gets fired up about. As I see it from my current position the term ‘amplification’ as opposed to ‘saturation’ is critical within the climate change understanding, and I’m not done trying to understand. At some level though this subject becomes open rather than closed, as the CC4 has it.

54

On the one hand, I’m glad you are reading archives. On the other, it’s frustrating to have respond to your assumptions. His account had some sort of glitch that we couldn’t fix, so he created the new one.

55

You say I’m a fraud?
A little quiz for you:
Okay can you list some of the ways that period (glacial-interglacial transitions), and the Earth itself was/is different from today’s civilization overrun Earth?

=========================

You neatly bypassed the “global warming hiatus” fib.

I FORGOT TO MENTION THE MAIN CULPRIT TO THE ILLUSION, NAMELY, THE DISHONEST RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA MACHINE and how they ignore geophysical reality.

oh, and apparently you missed this, so I need to repeat this video until you do

56

I guess I’ll try to be conversant with you here, but it isn’t easy.
In terms of hiatus, it looks as if 2016 is a new modern peak:

5000×3000 555 KB

I’m not denying the warming, but as well there is no ramping trend there. It’s as if we are stuck at a delta of one degree. I’m sure you’d like to see it ooch to 1.4 this year, but it doesn’t seem possible now. Instead it looks like it’s going to come in under the 1.0 figure. Based on my local experience and memory I could be ten under here in central New Hampshire for August; where Bernie won big twice! He really stuck it to the media, too. I was there, and it was great. And of course he had McKibben on his team. I do get the bit about the fossil fuel companies and their subsidies; having bought out the Republican party who appeared to be warmongers with deep state backing. Several reversals have occurred since then. The realignment that is afoot now does not relate directly to an elderly point of view. Indeed much of this occurred on a Black man’s watch. After knifing Boehner in the oval office he took in the deep state, as they realized that their grand old party was no more; had them do color revolutions all over the place; black lives matter, too. My best theory to date is that he built Russiagate with them as the sword that they would fall on. Pulled out all the stops; got Bernie; an independent; into every state democratic party primary and with the pied piper strategy managed to get Trump in on the other side… as the weakest candidate to beat…

Now, having covered your American cheese with more of the same, and twice over I might add, I dug up a different claim of a 300ppm saturation point: arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00708.pdf :
“In his 1972 article1, Schack points out that for a concentration of 0.03 % carbon
dioxide in air, approximate saturation is reached within a distance of approximately
the magnitude of the height of the troposphere. The absorption reaches values close
to 100 % for a realistic CO2 content of 0.03 %, it is concluded1 that any further
increase of (anthropogenic) CO2 cannot lead to an appreciably stronger absorption
of radiation, and consequently cannot affect the earth’s climate.”

It seems they use what they call a “CO2 Airpipe”, which sounds a lot like Happer’s description with the CO2 lasers, which I guess you could claim is a weakness, but the results are inconsistent with WAW’s results, which show saturation at 50ppm as I understand it. All this while none of these people dispute the tremendous spectral notch that the CO2 greenhouse effect is derived from. There is no question that the notch is dominant and that the effect is real. The question is how much? Somehow in your diatribe you find it necessary to deny this saturation claim altogether, whereas it is pretty well proven. I have not made progress on gaining an understanding of what some are calling amplification, which is some follow on to this saturation effect that will provide some additional warming mechanism. I suppose if you had such information you would share it? Or would you hoard it? I’m pretty sure I know the answer already.
Your inauthentic approach does nothing for your cause. Less than nothing, actually…
You know there are several problems with American cheese. It lasts forever, and with each slice wrapped in plastic it is easy to handle; even with dirty hands. The thing is if you get a few slices in your mouth and chew on the tangy goodness, when you swallow it could get stuck in the back of your throat. The Heimlich maneuver is not proven to work on such gluey substances. Please be very wary of how much of that stuff you eat. It is best to keep your own airpipes open and flowing as long and freely as possible. How fortunate we are that we don’t seem to be able to use up the oxygen, though from a capitalist stance that is a good business enterprise. Canned air, why? Bottled water… why? Some things are cryptic, while others are not. If that’s not American cheese in the back of your throat, perhaps it is just snot.
Speak clearly, now, you’re joking sir? You’re choking sir! You should never have eaten all of that American cheese.

57

My Godzilla, you are right! It is exactly as the hiatus has it!

Peaking roughly at 2016!
Amazing find CC4!

And now, as I recall this sort of thing is known as ‘frontloading’:

I have to believe that the NOAA information is not in conflict with their system. By NOAA we are sub-1.0 right now aren’t we? Something does not jibe here. 1.0C<->1.8F… I don’t think it’s a conversion problem, though 1.5 is close to this figure. Actually, this would be consistent with another hiatus, right? El Nino is mentioned. That doesn’t seem consistent with these hiatus events though. Going back to 1900 we would be playing this game of the hottest year on record being in the recent time frame; well before the combustion engine. Still, there was coal. It has a tension about it, though, especially given the politicization of climate change. That Americans could be behind it all… rather than Russians… American cheese… FAFA.

58

And not a word about how heat is circulated throughout the system.
Nor about monitoring abilities (and advances) for tracking those vectors.

Not the slightest interest in explaining or understanding the system and the basics.

Just a lot of hand waving.

5000×3000 555 KB

WTF!

Do you even know what is being measured?

Why not include a link to the page you copied that off of?

Do you understand what’s being measured? (Please explain.)

Also, please explain what you think is so significant about that map? (what’s it telling us)

  • just stick to this particular graph for a while, at least until we can nail it down, then go on from there.

Please let’s do some actual climate science homework. Focus.

59

As I understand it these would be ‘surface’ temperatures we are looking at.
The wiki page I was studying halted at 2016; a convenient place to halt if you want to impress the warmest year on record. I merely went to NOAA and asked for the 2023 version.
I pasted this as a link to NOAA, but it looks like it got downloaded to CFI through their system, which isn’t quite good as it does obscure the source; though it does freeze and cache the data doesn’t it?

It’s straight from NOAA, sir. The 2016 hiatus is a bit of a joke, isn’t it? If we could just time travel; and had decent data, we would be watching one hiatus after another since 1900, and arguably earlier than that, right? We’re getting close to a decade now of not breaking the record. This isn’t exactly a nail-bighter. Still, how many of these peaks have a decade until the next? I could do this analysis, but I accept that these hiatus events are statistical in nature. The record isn’t terribly deep on this dataset, either…

1110×500 33.2 KB

As WAW points out, there is cause to even doubt the elderly data. Still, maybe it is better than nothing.

It really would be something if we peaked in 2016, and now the clouds are coming in. Thermal mass alone has to delay things, right? That’s where I was going with the oceans warming; drawing moisture out of the air actually; inverse evaporation; known as condensation.

As I gain an understanding of the saturation claim, the way to falsify it is not as is done by your favorite site. It is not going to be done by acting like it isn’t there, either.

The original notch, and I’ll leave out the whipping boy and just use WAW, shows an extremely powerful effect of CO2 notching the blackbody spectrum of the Earths radiation dramatically. What if they took away too much immediately here? In effect, by claiming all of that as reabsorbed heat and not losing any of it, which I believe is clearly stated in their model, then there is that much less heat to account for later. Their method is blatantly oversimplified. They state as much themselves. At least as I understand it at this moment, there is not an analysis of cooling taking place, which is heat loss essentially. They simply have taken an even more conservative approach of calling it all absorbed; thus in a sense making a fool of those who insist on heating, since they’ve certainly done that generously with the initial notch. In effect their model would have to be criticized as too hot in order to arrive with the falsification.
Why? Because they took all the heat the OCO could absorb away already. Simply put, we ask where did this heat go? It is a study of hot air; of challenging an adiabatic assumption. Sadly this lands us in the sea of climate models which is the route that they managed to short-circuit. As a moth beats its wings next to a grape leaf, setting off a small rectified air current which decreases the time of lift of a warm air mass by two seconds upward toward the troposphere, thereby wrecking the GISS12.3u1.6 data… consuming one years computation at the NOAA server farm, not to mention a gigawatt hour of heat piped into the very study space, and we’re back at square one.

Wasn’t it Lorenz who nailed this down back in the 1800’s? No. I’m too far back in time here…
" In 1963, Edward Lorenz, with the help of Ellen Fetter who was responsible for the numerical simulations and figures,[1] and Margaret Hamilton who helped in the initial, numerical computations leading up to the findings of the Lorenz model,[2] developed a simplified mathematical model for atmospheric convection.[1] The model is a system of three ordinary differential equations now known as the Lorenz equations:"; Lorenz system - Wikipedia

None of this analysis is going to take place by blanking out the source. The WAW spectroscopic analysis obviously is not being falsified; thus the saturation effect in this simplified form is accurate. What is, or could be inaccurate, is the simplifying, which somewhat does take on the falsification claim in the infamous video with the Earth blanketed in atmosphere at twice its diameter, and little OCO’s zapping each other. I have seen the keyword ‘amplification’ used several places, but it doesn’t turn up much for me in conjunction with saturation. So I’d call this analysis here a bit too hot; too fresh; because I’m only part way through. I’m open to falsification; certainly. The more direct the better.

60

Okay, so what?
Please explain - What’s the big deal?

I wonder do you realize that the atmosphere only holds about 10% of the heat within our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution engine?

This is critically important to understanding the real physical reasons for why the Global Warming Hiatus is an utter manmade public relations fraud, worse a bit of brainwashing.

Global Warming is caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s simple physics and physical reality doesn’t take a hiatus just because biased dishonest people misread and misunderstand data and misrepresent the facts.
To make it even worse, many are totally disinterested in learning about the complexity of our Global Climate Engine, in fact, they get pissed off and treat the physical facts as though they were attacks.

Hint:

image
image1276×1528 97.5 KB

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE EXPERTS!

THEY CATCH THINGS WE MERE MORTALS MISS.

SHOW THEM SOME RESPECT.

You might not like the way this scientist looks, but he’s still a real scientist and he’s trying to explain something that contrarians do their best to ignore. So they can play all innocent and offended when anyone second guess their game.

Climate Scientist reacts to Jordan Peterson challenge.

Feb 2, 2023 #jordanpeterson

#ClimateChange

Jordan Peterson is at it again: (knowingly) sharing misinformation, while asking “Anyone object to this chart?”. But what’s the truth behind natural climate change, and why is Peterson’s representation of global warming so misleading? Climate scientists joined forces to explain and object to the graph that Jordan Peterson presented. I break down the reality and what’s really going on in tweets like this.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220104160216/https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1614673976994959360

=============

So we have physics of the upper atmosphere that is being exquisitely observed since about 2000, and supported by the equations of physics and molecular behavior. 25/7/365, how that moves around is incredibly complex.

Then we have the oceans, a huge heat sink, and the atmosphere, and the surface of Earth. Then we have the dance of heat & moisture transferring between ocean and atmosphere played out upon the surface of the entire planet, -
plus more understood physics produces our weather.

We need to appreciate the entire global heat and moisture distribution engine, read climate system, in order to under anything.