500

In summary we have basically learned or revised the game in the best way.
By playing hands with other people, making mistakes and testing the rules.
It is a great card game, a little complicated by those darn Jacks or Bowers  and by those people who insist on trying Misere.

I hope we can get back up running in the near future.
We have had 30 people through who now know each other a little better. I would hope that some of you can contact others and have some games at home perhaps.

Today we are giving out some small prizes to those lucky people who first call and make 10 of a suit contract, a misere or a No trump bid at the 7 level. There will also be a prize for the person who first picks up a Joker and a bower in their suit contract.

In summary, be bold if you can. Give other people a chance and bid 6 spades in opening position if you have nothing to bid, at least your partner will not get carried away.
4 top cards eg AK, AK, with a joker to bid 6 No Trumps.
5 in a suit with a joker or bower and an outside ace to call a trump suit at the 6 level.
You cannot bid Misere after passing or if the 7 level has not been reached.

Today’s lesson was to be on “Finessing” or trapping an opponents king when you hold the A and Queen. You should lead another suit to partner asking for a lead back in the next suit up if they ever get in.

Lead a spade if you want a club lead, lead a cub for a diamond , a diamond for a heart and a heart for a spade.

WILLIS

  • angech says:

    Bindidon
    Are you serious?

    Yes.
    Outgoing radiation is measured in terms of W/square metres from the top of the atmosphere by satellite on average 100 km out.

    You cannot measure it any other way.

    It is 240 W/TOASqM.
    This figure would have a lot more energy in it if converted to W/SqM earth surface.
    One cannot balance an energy balance by balancing incompatible terms.

    TOA measurements are prone to very large SD.
    My understanding is that what the earth would put out per sq M at the TOA surface equals what is put out at a much higher temperature at the earth’s surface.
    They are equivalent.
    There should not be any loss of energy at the TOA.
    The amount of energy should be equal.
    The GHG back radiation is needed to build the earth surface up to the required radiating temp.
    Very disappointed that no one else can see this.

Would you mind explaining how and where the Total outgoing IR to space is calculated? 240 W/M2 but where is the meter located?
The energy budget works on the amount of energy calculated on its way to the earths surface and at the earths surface.
But the outgoing IR to space is not coming from the surface.
That has to be the emitted surface radiation, 395 W/M 2.
The radiation emitted to space is the radiation out at the TOA.
This is a concern because any radiation measured or assumed to be 240 W/M 2 at a level of 100 km [TOA surface area 526.2 million km² Radius: 6,471 km].
cannot be the same as radiation measured at the Earth Surface area [510.1 million km² Radius: 6,371 km.

The maths in the energy budget just becomes wrong.
If the outgoing energy has been adjusted to earth circumference the true TIA must be higher and then would not agree with what your instruments measure in terms of outgoing flux.
So are the instruments you use measuring true outgoing radiation at TOA
which is per square meter of the TOA surface area, what I would expect.
If so how can anyone use this figure 240 W/M2 to balance an energy equation based on square meters at earth Surface level.

I am sorry to be a nuisance.
You have offered to try to get the message across on IR which I hopefully get.
Could you please point out where the basic error I am making is?Enough already.
I do not care what religion anyone is.
That is their business, right or wrong.
I do not care how religion treats science.
Their gain or loss.
Discuss the science or lack of it only.
I do know that most nearly all science has evolved within the religious frameworks of nearly all societies.
Zoroastrian, Hindu, Chinese, Aztec, Arabic as in Jewish, Christian and Moslem in order of appearance. Multiple other religions current and extinguished have had scientists in their ranks.
Our greatest modern scientists in the western world have had strong religious beliefs, Galileo and Newton for starters.
I think we should treat our great scientists with the respect they deserve for the work they have done. Christy and Spencer should probably get a Nobel Prize for the more than 30 years of dedicated work and theorizing they have put in.
They won’t.
Thank you DG for your comments which were expressed much better.
Can we please drop the religious attacks and concentrate on the science” Much of the first part of Dr. Ollila’s article is just fine. His objection to the diagram is introduced with the following statement, which those who hold similar views to his will be triggered by:

“The obvious reason for the GH effect seems to be the downward infrared radiation from the atmosphere to the surface and its magnitude is 345 W/m2. Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 (solar) + 345 (downward infrared from the atmosphere) = 510 W/m2.“

But this is where the problem with ambiguous wording comes in. The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more [“New”] energy to the surface. It is merely returning a portion of the atmosphere-absorbed solar, infrared, and convective transport energy back to the surface in the form of infrared energy.

As shown in Fig. 2, the surface is still emitting more IR energy than the atmosphere is returning to the surface, resulting in net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy. And, as previously mentioned, all energy fluxes at the surface balance.

And this is what our intuition tells us should be happening: the surface is warmed by sunlight, and cooled by the loss of IR energy (plus moist and dry convective cooling of the surface of 91 and 24 W/m2, respectively.)”


Therefore, the surface absorbs totally 165 (solar) + 345 (downward infrared from the atmosphere) = 510 W/m2.“ Yes
the surface is still emitting more IR energy than the atmosphere is returning to the surface, resulting in net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy. Yes
Plus (plus moist and dry convective cooling of the surface of 91 and 24 W/m2, respectively.)” = 165 W/M-2 The surface absorbed solar radiation] Yes

So far I agree with both of you?

But Ollila” The difference between the radiation to the surface and the net solar radiation is 510 – 240 = 270 Wm-2. The real GH warming effect is right here: it is 270 Wm-2 because it is the extra energy warming the Earth’s surface in addition to the net solar energy.”

This is the magical energy from nowhere step you are referring to? Because , as you say, The atmosphere is not, strictly speaking, adding more [“New”] energy to the surface.
Ollila actually acknowledges this in his article ” According to the energy conversation law, energy cannot be created from the void. According to the same law, energy does not disappear, but it can change its form.” but ploughs ahead.

“The final step is that we must find out what is the mechanism creating this infrared radiation from the atmosphere. According to the IPCC’s definition, the GH effect is caused by the GH gases and clouds which absorb infrared radiation of 155 Wm-2 emitted by the surface and which they further radiate to the surface. This same figure has been applied by the research group of Gavin Schmidt calculating the contributions of GH gases and clouds. As we can see there is a problem – and a very big problem – in the IPCC’s GH effect definition: the absorbed energy of 155 Wm-2 cannot radiate to the surface 345 Wm-2 or even 270 Wm-2.”

Here I go off the rails.
“If we were to represent these infrared energy flows in Fig. 1 more completely, there would be a nearly infinite number of red arrows, both upward and downward, connecting every vanishingly-thin layer of atmosphere with every other vanishingly thin layer. Those are the flows that are happening continuously in the atmosphere.”

I presume that the ” net surface loss of [395 – 345 =] 50 W/m2 of infrared energy.” which is all that is left over when “moist and dry convective cooling of the surface of 91 and 24 W/m2, respectively.” is removed from the “initial surface absorbs totally 165 (solar)” is actually doing far more than rebounding just once and going off into space. There would be a limiting factor at 345 W/M-2 which is how much energy bounces back repeatedly until it can escape?

Dr Ollila’s summary of heat sources
” it is easy to name the two other energy sources which are needed for causing the GH effect namely latent heating 91 Wm-2 and sensible heating 24 Wm-2, which make 270 Wm-2 with the longwave absorption of 155 Wm-2. When the solar radiation absorption of 75 Wm-2 by the atmosphere will be added to these three GH effect sources, the sum is 345 Wm2.”
explains why it is a little more complicated than that in that some of the IR comes from the effects of the IR radiation from other parts of the atmosphere but I am not sure where he gets the longwave absorption of 155 Wm-2.

Ah.
It is the fact that the surface emission is higher than the TOA radiation to space so energy [quite a lot] must somehow be be being trapped in the atmosphere.

“Now, I have spent at least a couple of hours trying to follow his line of reasoning, and I cannot.”

Dr Ollila’s reasoning “Here is the point: the IPCC’s definition means that the LW absorption of 155 Wm-2 could create radiation of 270 Wm-2 which is impossible.”

“The Role of Earth Radiation Budget Studies in Climate and General Circulation Research“ Ramanathan
The greenhouse effect. The estimates of the outgoing longwave radiation also lead to quantitative inferences about the atmospheric greenhouse effect. At a globally averaged temperature of 15°C the surface emits about 390 W m -2, while according to satellites, the long-wave radiation escaping to space is only 237 W m -2. Thus the absorption and emission of long-wave radiation by the intervening atmospheric gases and clouds cause a net reduction of about 150 W m -2 in the radiation emitted to space. This trapping effect of radiation, referred to as the greenhouse effect, plays a dominant role in governing the temperature of the planet.”‘

Dr Ollila has a point. the surface emits about 390 W m -2, the long-wave radiation escaping to space is said to be only 237 W m -2. [where ??TOA or earth’s surface vitally important]
How can anybody say this ” a net reduction of about 150 W m -2 in the radiation emitted to space.”
The earth has had Greenhouses gases for over 2 billion years, possibly 4 billion.
How hot should we be if our planet can keep trapping 150W/M-2 for 2 billion years?

  • “Now, this is curious. On average the change at the surface is a little less than half the TOA greenhouse effect change. So an increase of 3.7 W/m2 at the TOA from a doubling of CO2 becomes a 1.8 W/m2 increase at the surface.”
    “The key is to realize that the atmosphere is not heated by just Ramanathan’s ~150 W/m2.”

    Hate that diagram.
    Trying to explain things
    There is a TOA of 237 W/m2.
    At this level 100 km above the earth the incoming energy that is not reflected exactly balances the outgoing energy 237 W/m2.
    The surface of the earth is radiating at 392 W/m2.
    This is amazingly higher than the 342 W/m2. from the total incoming reflected and incident solar radiation.
    The GHG effect is basically to add 321 W/m2. of back radiation to the heating of the earth surface to the 169 W/m2. from the incident solar radiation that reaches the earth.
    Basically the surface should be at a temperature commensurate with 490 W/m2. ie hotter than it is.
    It emits however at 392 W/m2.giving I presume a temp of 15C, because the other 98 W/m2. is lost by sensible heat 10 W/m2. and latent heat 18 W/m2.

    Now there is no Ramanathan 150 W/m2. being absorbed all the time. Some energy has to absorbed to raise the temperature of the air and surface but this is almost instantaneous and trivial when considering all those hydrogen bombs of energy going through the atmosphere every second. Air temperature changes very quickly night to day. Once it is warmed up there is no 150 W/m2. being drained into an atmospheric greenhouse battery all the time.
    The energy in equals the energy out at the TOA.

    Now why do we have a seeming TOA imbalance from the surface when there is not one at the TOA?
    Because we are not comparing oranges with oranges.
    The total energy absorbed at the surface is for a much smaller sphere.
    Earth Surface area: 510.1 million km² Radius: 6,371 km energy emitted 392.
    TOA surface area 526.2 million km² Radius: 6,471 km energy emitted 237.
    Is this enough to make these 2 figures equal is what I would like someone to answer.
    On the surface it does not look likely but?

    One cannot take energy figures per square meter of a much larger sphere from energy figures for a much smaller sphere without doing a calibration for surface area and attenuation.

  • Hmm seems the outgoing IR is measured at the TOA 100 KM out so spread over a bigger sphere surface area but the energy going into the ground is measured at earth surface area a smaller sphere so the energy budget diagrams are technically out of whack.
    Technically the two have to balance to have a TOA in the first place

    OLR is a critical component of the Earth’s energy budget, and represents the total radiation going to space emitted by the atmosphere.[3] OLR contributes to the net all-wave radiation for a surface which is equal to the sum of shortwave and long-wave down-welling radiation minus the sum of shortwave and long-wave up-welling radiation.[4] The net all-wave radiation balance is dominated by long-wave radiation during the night and during most times of the year in the polar regions.[5] Earth’s radiation balance is quite closely achieved since the OLR very nearly equals the Shortwave Absorbed Radiation received at high energy from the sun. Thus, the Earth’s average temperature is very nearly stable

    • angech January 21, 2020 at 11:04 pm

      Hmm seems the outgoing IR is measured at the TOA 100 KM out so spread over a bigger sphere surface area but the energy going into the ground is measured at earth surface area a smaller sphere so the energy budget diagrams are technically out of whack.

      Angtech, I would be shocked if this were not taken into consideration. Scientists are often foolish but rarely dumb. Hang on, let me run the numbers …

      … OK, The surface area of a sphere varies as R^2. The CERES satellites are actually at an altitude of about 500 km., not 100. That means that the area of the sphere where the satellites orbit is about 16.3% larger than the earth’s surface. The idea that scientists wouldn’t bot notice and adjust for a potential error of 16% is simply not reasonable.

      w.

  • angech January 21, 2020 at 10:14 pm Edit

    “Now, this is curious. On average the change at the surface is a little less than half the TOA greenhouse effect change. So an increase of 3.7 W/m2 at the TOA from a doubling of CO2 becomes a 1.8 W/m2 increase at the surface.”

    “The key is to realize that the atmosphere is not heated by just Ramanathan’s ~150 W/m2.”


    Hate that diagram.

    Back up. Explain what it is that you hate about my diagram. It is a representation of the simplest possible layout of the energy flows. Just what is it that you “hate” about it?

    Now, I drew that up about 20 years ago because of the problems with the Trenberth version, which has lots of handwaving. Mine, on the other hand, obeys the physical laws—energy is conserved at all levels, and radiation up = radiation down.

    Now, the numbers are slightly out per CERES … but then two decades ago I didn’t have CERES data. But other than that … what’s wrong with it?

    Finally, the top layer is not 500 km out, or a hundred KM out. The bottom layer of the stratosphere is the effective radiating layer. We know this from the brightness temperature of the radiation. It’s at about 10 km. This difference in altitude introduces an error of 0.3% in the simplified energy diagram … lost in the noise.

    w.

    • Willis,
      I notice that you’ve got, (in your diagram), 321 watts/sq.m of “backradiation” from the “greenhouse” gases coming down from the atmosphere and absorbed by the surface.
      According to the diagram you only get 169 watts/sq.m impinging on the surface from the sun…the sun Willis,… in summer hot enough to melt tar on the roads.
      I was wondering if you leave your bacon and eggs out on the porch overnight and have them cooked for you in the morning by that backradiation from the atmosphere.?

      • Mack January 22, 2020 at 2:47 am

        Willis,
        I notice that you’ve got, (in your diagram), 321 watts/sq.m of “backradiation” from the “greenhouse” gases coming down from the atmosphere and absorbed by the surface.
        According to the diagram you only get 169 watts/sq.m impinging on the surface from the sun…the sun Willis,… in summer hot enough to melt tar on the roads.
        I was wondering if you leave your bacon and eggs out on the porch overnight and have them cooked for you in the morning by that backradiation from the atmosphere.?

        Summer roads are not heated by the average radiation of 169 W/m2. They’re heated by something like a kilowatt per square metre or so of sunshine, plus thermal radiation from the atmosphere.

        Next, it seems you think that the idea that the atmosphere emits thermal radiation to be somehow incredible or impossible. Not sure why. It’s been measured, not theorized but measured, thousands and thousands of times by scientists around the planet.

        w.

        • Well, I thought those numbers would have pricked up your ears, Willis I would have thought that 321 watts/ sq.m. of “backradiation” belting down from the ATMOSPHERE 24/7, would have triggered some form of thought process in your head….. particularly since it’s nearly TWICE the amount of solar radiation impinging upon the surface.! Is there nothing about that which really unsettles you? Is there nothing about that which says…”hang on, there could be some mistake in these diagrams.” ?

          • Thanks, Mack. You clearly think downwelling longwave infrared radiation is imaginary.

            Me, I know that it’s been measured all over the planet by scientists. It’s measured at all the SURFRAD sites. It’s measured by the TAO buoys. It’s measured at the ARM sites.

            Do you truly think that those hundreds of scientists are just making it up?

            Also, if the ? 169 w/m2 of sunlight was the only thing heating the surface, it would be at about -40°C or so … is there nothing about that which really unsettles you?

            w.

          • Willis Eschenbach January 23, 2020 at 12:35 am

            Also, if the ? 169 w/m2 of sunlight was the only thing heating the surface, it would be at about -40°C or so …

            Why do you keep pushing this radiative balance temperature nonsense?
            If the surface temperatures on Earth were in radiative balance with incoming solar we would see temperature swings from ~3K during the night to 365K or higher during the day.
            Is not happening.
            169 W/m^2 is ~14,6 MJ/m^2 over 24 hrs. This seems close to the world average as shown in these charts:
            https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/isoflux-contour-plots
            14,6 MJ/m^2 between sunrise and sunset is enough energy to INCREASE the temperature of the upper 4 m of ocean water 1K.
            Has nothing to do with RADIATIVE balance.
            Backradiation does not warm the surface, it reduces the energy loss from the surface to the atmosphere. Otherwise we would see your 321 W/m^2 + ~1000 W/m^2 at noon giving temperatures of ~390K.

1 metre by 1 metre by 1 metre concrete block floating in outer space.
The block is insulated on four sides, a perfect insulator, no heat at all is lost from the four insulated sides.
the emissivity “epsilon” and absorptivity across the spectrum are both 0.95.
the thermal conductivity “k” of the concrete is equal to 0.8 watts per metre per kelvin (0.8 W/m K^-1)
it gets full-time sunshine on the front side at a rate of 1360 watts per square metre (W/m2).
what will be the temperature T_hot of the hot side and the temperature T_cold of the opposite cold side?

At a 1 molecule thinness the temperature on both sides would be equal hence half as hot as expected if the back surface was also insulated. 65.67C
At a million metres the back surface would be at a very low temperature just above 62 K.
This would be enough to drain the minute amount of energy that makes it across the block.
Th surface of the block receiving radiation has to heat up to a higher temperature to force heat across the concrete gradient. The maximum it can heat to is double the energy it absorbs.
The soldering iron I think someone referred to it as.

129.77 C or 512.92K is the Temp of the hot side.
Similar range to the surface of the moon different albedo.

The cold side is more difficult. The bulk of the thermal mass built up by absorption of energy is at the heated end which radiates most of the radiation back out.
The small amount that “conducts” 0.8 watts per metre per kelvin finally gives that level to the other side which immediately radiates it into space giving it a temp of -210.4 C or 62.75 K

 

500 week 5

Dealing and suits.

No Trumps.

Misere
How to discard. Any questions?

todays talk is on aspects of play.

How to assess your hand, communicate with your partner and what to lead and when.

You need 5 cards with one of the top 3 cards and an outside ace to open  Suit at the 6 level.

Global Temperature anomalies nick stokes

Global Temperature anomalies

The problems with land and ocean based reconstructions of global temperature and global temperature anomaly maps is very basic. Why do them at all?
This is a serious question and does have some complex answers which lead to more complex questions.

The main answer would be to act as an adjunct to and back up checklist for the satellite systems which give a much greater coverage and specificity and accuracy than a limited stone age measuring and recording system can do. Satellite systems are the backbone for all weather estimation, reporting and predicting. They are the only reasonably accurate source of a true current global temperature, depending on what criteria you wish to choose. None of this can be done by land and sea based systems recording singular sites on a current event pattern with poor real time transmission of data from limited sites.

Satellite problems and strengths.
Satellite collection of data does have problems at the local level, a bit like quantum theory  when you have to drill down to the size of raindrops you lose the ability to measure the actual micro events like precipitation and surface temperature. This is more than made up for by the ability to reach inaccessible areas all around the globe, by being able to chart map and check cloud formation and coverage over land and sea plus get temperatures from all parts of the visible ocean.
Satellites do drift and adjustments do have to be made for the effects on the wavelengths they are recording. Satellites do have to have confirmation of the temperature readings at specified locations which in turn helps in adjusting the settings to get the best match. What satellites also offer is GPS positioning of all places, heights, depths, elevation and distance from the centre of the earth which effects the temperature and air flow. Mentioning air flow raises the fact that the jet streams polar vortices and other important higher up air flow patterns are assessed as is moisture content of the air masses . Similar data can be gathered to some extent on ocean currents at a superficial level.

Thermometers and a standard.
To come back to the question of assessing the global temperature or more correctly a global temperature anomaly how many, functioning properly, well sited thermometers do you need?
This raises the problem of a definition of an average global temperature
The answer strangely is just two.
The resultant temperature would be a bit like the El Nino, La Nina temperature patterns. It would run in a trough between summer and winter conditions, It would have times when weather patterns conspired to make seemingly ridiculous departures from the norm but over time it would give a reasonable approximation of both anomaly change and average temperature at those sites.

Could you improve the overall accuracy by choice of site position?  A site at the equator  is  different to one at the poles in the amount of variation possible in the temperature range seasonally and in the actual average temperature. Two sites inland by 10 kilometers on a low lying plain say 30* metres elevation  on the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn   would obviate the problems of polar and equatorial extremes and also allow for a balance between the more land filled NH and the water based SH. Two further pairs would allow back up and comparison to occur.

Six continents, 6 countries, State of the art thermometers and restriction zones of a kilometer and you could have an agreed , reliable , international standard global temperature for all time. Now this would still not be as accurate and reliable as the satellites can do without the blink of an eye but it would standardize  issues as it would have a much longer term  reproducible result than satellites with their limited life span can give.

The Global Temperature What is it and why is it important.

Coming back to a global temperature and the fact that a reasonably  accurate version can only be given currently by Satellite data the question is why is it useful? The answer is that it is needed for all projections of earth weather, climate and climate change.
All GCM’s must have an initial Global temperature start up point. This data point obviously should not change over time. It should be the same for all GCM and all weather and climate predicting models. That is it should have a chosen start date and level known by everyone and written down in black and white.
However different data sets will have different GT.
GCM have been around since the 70’s and are said to be quite good in their projections. There are new ones being created  all the time.
If we assume that Zeke is right then there should be an original GT* and date in the first model that matches ir is linked to each subsequent model. If adjustments have been made to this parameter then the models would no longer be working on the same scenario.
If we have a standard GT  then there must be a past 1850 GT for each model that would be different due to their different algorithms, no problem there.
Other than there can be no exact  agreement on the amount of warming since 1850.

The problem for the models is that they must run on the Input GT at the time of setting up the model. To achieve this they have to input the current level from whatever data set they choose to use. Different data sets may have different GT.
As the new GCM may differ in its assumptions from the data set assumptions there will then exist an anomaly between the two models when they do a backwards run and comparison.
Further the data sets change their data going backwards daily by adjustments [Zeke] . When a comparison is used  a year later the current data set model being compared will differ from the one used a year before. The GCM will not adjust the data in the past so it on will give a GT based on the old readings as it enters the new readings.

GCMS  and Data sets have a built in bias for CO2 increase, also known as the ECS.

The Data sets like GHCN register the correct current temperatures and therefore bias the past lower to show the global warming that was expected to have occurred. There is no ability to move thermometers upwards. GCM’s on the other hand suffer a double whammy. They have incorporated data sets at the time of inception cooling the past which is fixed and now make assumptions on future warming from that date. Consequently they add on warming at a rate predicted by CO2 levels.
Why does CMP 6 run much hotter than CMP5 ? Wherever the newer models start from the GMT was not much higher than the older models yet had a much larger CO2 warming adjustment to work with

Here is where the problem with gridding and adjustments and sites comes into full play.

An assumption that all sea levels are the same yet due to the earth shape grids away from the equator have a lesser air pressure due to lesser gravity which affects the temperature but is not taken into account. Grids here may be determined in part by ones 1000 Km north or south.
Gridding on land may not take elevation fully into account. Two sites on either side of a mountain range have a different temperature to the grid with the mountain between. Elevation is taken into account in local site shifts  but very difficult to do properly when sites are hundreds of miles apart. Certainly not taken into account by some of the people describing their grid attempts which are only temperature infills not elevation, forestation, mountains and deserts
When the sites used  become airports, airports do need accurate temperature levels, we can either have a Global Airport Temperature reading  or an inaccurate Global Temperature outcome.

Note this comment and or post was inspired by Nick Stokes Moyhu blog where he gives an excellent summary of the main methods of assessing global temperatures and local temperatures “US temperatures 27/2/2020” Averaging and graphics methods.

 

 

I have for many years been experimenting with methods for calculating average surface temperature anomalies from collections of station readings (including sea surface from grid, regarded as stations). I describe the history here. In the early days, I tried to calculate the averages for various countries and continents. With the coarse grids I was using at the time, and later meshes, I found the results unsatisfactory, and of limited scientific importance.

So I put more effort into developing global methods. There is a rather mathematical survey of these here. Briefly, there are six main types:

  • The conventional grid analysis, averaging the measurements within each cell, and then getting an area-weighted average of the cells. I think this is very unsatisfactory since either the grid is very coarse, or there are cells with no data.
  • Triangular mesh, with the sites as nodes. This has been my mainstay. But it is not very good at following national boundaries.
  • A method where spherical harmonics are fitted and then integrated. This is now implemented as a general method for improving otherwise weak methods. The structure is instructive, but again, intrinsically global.
  • A LOESS method, described here This has the characteristic of gathering information from as wide a net as needed; useful when stations get sparse, but not a respecter of boundaries.
  • Most recently, a method using FEM shape functions. I think this may be best, in terms of getting the best representation on a relatively coarse grid. Again, not so good for boundaries, but it has as a special case, one of my earlier methods:
  • Grid with infill (eg an early version here). The weakness of conventional gridding is that it does not use local information to estimate missing cells, and so the grid must be kept fairly coarse. But I have worked out a way of doing that systematically, which then allows much finer gridding. And that does have the incidental benefit of tracking national and land boundaries. It also allows a good graphics scheme. I’ll say more about it in the next section. In this text, I’m using blue colors for the more technical text.

Infilling and diffusion – the Laplace equation.

The logical expression of using neighbour information is that empty cells should be assigned the average temperature of their neighbours. For an isolated cell, or maybe a few, you can do this directly. But with clumps of empty cells, some may have no known neighbours at all. But you can still maintain the requirement; a solution procedure is needed to make it happen.

The idealization of this is the Laplace differential equation, solved with Dirichlet boundary conditions expressing the known cells, and zero gradient (Neumann) conditions at the boundaries (not needed for the globe). That equation would describe a physical realisation in which a sheet of metal was kept insulated but held at the appropriate temperatures in specified locations. The temperatures in between would, at equilibrium, vary continuously according to the Laplace equation.

This is a very basic physical problem, and methods are well established for solving. You just write a huge set of linear equations linking the variables – basically, one for each cell saying that it should be the average of the neighbours. I used to solve that system just by letting it play out as a diffusion, but faster is to use conjugate gradients.

Once the data-free cells are filled, the whole grid can be integrated by taking the area-weighted average of the cell values.

In one dimension, requiring each unknown value to be the average of its neighbours would lead to linear interpolation. Solving the Laplace equation is thus the 2D analogue of linear interpolation.

 

WILLIS

1 metre by 1 metre by 1 metre concrete block floating in outer space.
The block is insulated on four sides, a perfect insulator, no heat at all is lost from the four insulated sides.
the emissivity “epsilon” and absorptivity across the spectrum are both 0.95.
the thermal conductivity “k” of the concrete is equal to 0.8 watts per metre per kelvin (0.8 W/m K^-1)
it gets full-time sunshine on the front side at a rate of 1360 watts per square metre (W/m2).
what will be the temperature T_hot of the hot side and the temperature T_cold of the opposite cold side?

At a 1 molecule thinness the temperature on both sides would be equal hence half as hot as expected if the back surface was also insulated. 65.67C
At a million metres the back surface would be at a very low temperature just above 62 K.
This would be enough to drain the minute amount of energy that makes it across the block.
Th surface of the block receiving radiation has to heat up to a higher temperature to force heat across the concrete gradient. The maximum it can heat to is double the energy it absorbs.
The soldering iron I think someone referred to it as.

129.77 C or 512.92K is the Temp of the hot side.
Similar range to the surface of the moon different albedo.

The cold side is more difficult. The bulk of the thermal mass built up by absorption of energy is at the heated end which radiates most of the radiation back out.
The small amount that “conducts” 0.8 watts per metre per kelvin finally gives that level to the other side which immediately radiates it into space giving it a temp of -210.4 C or 62.75 K

ARCTIC ICE

This is an article on Mosaic, a yearlong mission starting in September 2019  described as the largest-scale Arctic research expedition of all time: In September 2019, the German research icebreaker Polarstern departed from Tromsø (Norway) and, once it had reached its destination, will spend the next year drifting through the Arctic Ocean, trapped in the ice. A total of 600 people, who will be supplied by other icebreakers and aircraft, will participate in the expedition – and several times that number of researchers will subsequently use the data gathered to take climate and ecosystem research to the next level. More than 70 research institutions from 20 countries are involved in the expedition. The mission is spearheaded by the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI).

I thought it would be interesting to WUWT readers on two levels, one as an active, thought out scientific set of experiments of interest to most readers and the other as an example of what happens when motivation overcomes commonsense.

From the expedition website.

Mission-   MOSAiC aims at a breakthrough in understanding the Arctic climate system and in its representation in global climate models. MOSAiC will provide a more robust scientific basis for policy decisions on climate change mitigation and adaptation and for setting up a framework for managing Arctic development sustainably.  The Arctic is the key area of global climate change, with warming rates exceeding twice the global average  and warming during winter even larger.

The backbone of MOSAiC is the year-round operation of RV Polarstern, drifting with the sea ice across the central Arctic during the years 2019 to 2020. During the set-up phase, RV Polarstern entered the Siberian sector of the Arctic in the thin sea ice conditions of late summer.

A distributed regional network of observational sites has been set up on the sea ice in an area of up to ~40 km distance from RV Polarstern. The ship and the surrounding network are now drifting with the natural ice drift across the polar cap towards the Atlantic, while the sea ice thickens during winter (red dotted line in Figure 1).Large scale research facilities addressing key aspects of the coupled Arctic climate system have been set up on board of RV Polarstern and on the sea ice next to it, in the so-called ice camp.The distributed regional network further around the central observatory is comprised of autonomous and remotely-operated sensors, characterizing the heterogeneity of key processes in an area representing a typical grid box of modern climate models and providing invaluable data for the development of parametrizations for sub-grid-scale processes in climate models.

Comments
It all started off  promisingly.  Mooring a purpose designed vessel to an Ice Floe large enough to deploy instruments and a base camp on and sit in the dark for 6 months while winter came and went.
A fully equipped bar, 200 plus elite scientists swapping every 2-3 months, Movies and icecapades.

What could possibly go wrong?
Well, everything.  Too much Arctic ice for starters. Polar bears, Arctic foxes. Keeping people restricted to the ship early on  in the middle of nowhere. [hint, I hope   Susanne Croxford checks this out].
Intrepid explorers falling into the frozen waters as leads developed and getting frost bite. Leads opening up and stretching and breaking so that distant sites lost communications. Hurricanes and a severe build up of ice and overlapping ice ledges.
Communication problems , equipment problems and broken equipment.
Poorly designed recording systems for the radar . The ship has to run on diesel engines and keep enough lights on to help detect the bears. The lights and heating and bar chew up a lot of diesel each day, prevent the nocturnal instruments from working close to the ship and cover the surrounding ice with a layer of ash and soot that prevents the ice from freezing as it should.
Instruments have frozen over and stopped working. Buoys have stopped working.


A supply vessel ,the Kapitan Dranitsin was supposed to resupply  3 weeks ago but the current rapid build up of Arctic ice [10th lowest] has caused it to run low on fuel and be 3 weeks late. It might need a relief icebreaker for the icebreaker to bring it enough fuel to get back.

Update  “Yesterday morning we had flight weather conditions and took the
chance to fly over to Kapitan Dranitsyn as she was less than 50
miles away. Our helicopter picked up the chief scientist of leg 3
Torsten Kanzow and nautical officer Igor Hering. They are replacing
our leg 2 co-chief scientist Benjamin Rabe and nautical officer Lutz
Peine now. Unfortunately, visibility decreased after that flight and
we had to cancel the exchange of additional people to allow them
to prepare their measurements. But in the meantime, Kapitan
Dranitsyn makes good progress towards the Polarstern and was
only twelve miles away this morning. We hope that they will arrive
at their designated mooring position one kilometer east of the
Polarstern by tomorrow and allow us to start the cargo operations
and handover.”

I wrote an acerbic description due to past episodes of scientists miscalculating the amount of variability in Arctic and Antarctic ice,. Hubris has certainly struck.
I admire the dedication of the scientists but it seems like many of them in planning this expedition forgot to look away from their computer screens  and out of the  window at the real world.

Sea Ice extent has been very variable but hit a new high for this year at 14.3 million Sq Km.  Much more than initially expected. It may well drop off again as it has done twice recently. Wait and don’t comment is good advice.

 

Misere

500 is a game of bidding to win, bidding to stop others winning and bidding to lose.

It has a unique feature that most other card games do not.
It lets people with a poor hand have a chance to win as well as the strong hand.
The risks are much greater as are the rewards.
This bid is called Misere and at a higher level, open misere.
Misere hands do not have any strong cards. The joker is a poison card, the first one to be thrown away if picked up in kitty.
The aim of misere is to successfully lose all 10 tricks.

Failure to do so could result in a loss of 250 points [normal misere] or 500 points [Open misere].

How to bid it.
Misere cannot be bid until a bid is made at the 7 level. Misere cannot be bid with a passed hand. This is why a very weak hand in first position can make a bid of 6 spades. If left in it does not lose very much , 40 points. If over called by a 7 bid or a 6 bid is raised by the opposition to the 7 level a bid of either misere can be made. It is over called by any 8 bid, even 8 spades which is worth slightly less.

When to bid it.
It is best bid when you have the lowest or near lowest cards , red 4’s black 5’s and a run of low supporting cards.
It should be bid to be made , but can also be used to stop an opponent going out
at a cost.
Some people get addicted to it which can be annoying to other players with good hands.  I would recommend restrictions, even with friends, such a only 1 successful bid per round per person, but it is an essential and fun part of the game that everyone should use and know how to counter.

When playing the person who called misere must lead a card first. Usually this will be in an unbeatable or near unbeatable suit.
If it is high, like a 10 try to get under it. If you cannot get under it play the highest card you have, including the joker, then lead a low card in another suit hoping partner has a low one as well. Keep playing low card in suits the bidder has until he loses by putting a high card on.

Note the bidders partner takes no part on the game. In open misere the player has to put his hand down on the table after leading which helps the opposition see where the weak points are to attack.

Opener tactic, discards. Here it is OK to keep high cards A,K if you have enough small cards to keep safe. Build up weakness in length. Discard any high cards on their own picked up in kitty. You should not bid Misere if you have 3 loose high cards, Kitty is much less of a help in Misere than in trying to make a game.

 

 

 

500

Welcome everyone to a series of playing 500 with a little bit of review for those who know how to play and a little bit of advice for those wishing to learn. 500 is played around the world by family and friends and has a basic set of rules.

House rules or local rules are prevalent, often different and should be discussed and made clear when attempting new games. We will be sticking to the printed rules as closely as possible to start but I am happy to modify them if enough people wish.

The basic game is for 4 people playing as pairs. It can range from 3 to 6.
The cards are shuffled and dealt.
The cards are dealt * 3 to each player, 1 to the kitty: 4 to each player and 1 to the kitty then 3 to each player and 1 to the kitty.
Everyone has 10 cards with 3 unknown in the kitty.

The 43 cards are red suits from the 3 to the Ace.
Black suits from the 4 to the Ace.
There are three special cards if playing in a suit [trumps], they are the top card, the Joker, the jack of the suit is the second highest card  called the right bower. The jack of the other suit of the same colour becomes the third highest card [left bower] in the suit called even though it did not belong to that suit originally.

There are 13 cards [trumps] in a red suit: Joker, 2 bowers [jacks] and 4-10 plus Queen, King and Ace of the suit
There are 12 cards [trumps] in a black suit: Joker, 2 bowers [jacks] and 5-10 plus Queen, King and Ace of the suit.

To start the player to the left of the dealer is the first to bid which can be a suit or a No trump starting at the 6 level going to the 10 level. Suits are called from the lowest ranking up, Spades, clubs diamonds and hearts. Higher again is no trumps where no suit is named as a trump suit.

The object is to win the stated number of tricks, or more, with your partner. The highest card wins and trumps are higher than all other cards but can only be payed if out of a suit or playing in the Trump suit.

Opponents get 10 points for each trick taken. Each increase of a level is worth a 100 points. The first team to bid to a score of 500 or more wins, If negative 500  you lose.

Today we will separate into newcomers and more experienced and play mostly 4 handed games  though if numbers are uneven we can try a table with 5 or 3 players. Pick a partner and find a table or we can just pair up alphabetically to start. Rounds will last 40 minutes and then pairs will exchange tables North south sitting still, East west going to the right

A few words on basic play.

You need two top cards, aces , Joker or bower and at least 4 cards in a suit, preferably 5 [counting left bower of the other suit and the joker as being in that suit] to bid 6 of a suit. You hope to pick up one more in Kitty.  6 small cards is always worth a bid due to the length. Kitty and your partner will provide the rest.
If you can see that you can win 6 tricks on your own you should bid 7. If you can win 7 you should bid 8.

500 is not a game for the faint hearted so there is one special rule in the  first few weeks. The opening bidder must make a 6 spade call even if they have no points and no spades*. This  is called a holding bid. The reason for this will become clear in following weeks when we learn and use misiere.

*There will be some disasters.
*Remember if you have no points and no-one else bids you only lose 40 points and they miss out on hundreds. Anyone who is the partner of a 6 spade bidder must realise that they have no support from their partner at all.

Always lead a trump when playing trumps. If you have the highest Trumps lead them. If only one of the top trumps lead a low trump and hope you have a special partner.

Raise partner 1 level with good support and 3 winners. 2 levels if you have good support and 4 winners. Remember she was counting on you and Kitty in the first place for 3 tricks.

 

atmosphere

“In the context of climate change, external factors that can lead to warming are typically called forcings. This would be things like changes to the solar flux, volcanic eruptions, and our release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Feedbacks are then responses to this externally driven warming that either act to amplify, or suppress, the warming. Some of these are fast, such as water vapour and clouds, while others are slower, such as changes to vegetation or ice sheets. Some are also negative and quite strong (such as the Planck response). This means that even though the overall effect of these feedbacks is to amplify the externally-driven warming, it is limited (the negative feedbacks eventually balance the the effect of the change in forcing and the resulting positive feedbacks). For example, if we were to double atmospheric CO2, we’d expect to eventually warm by about 3oC.

A runaway, on the other hand, typically refers to what happened on Venus. Essentially, virtually all of the CO2 was released into the atmosphere, the warming was so substantial that any liquid water evaporated and was eventually lost to space, most atmospheric molecules lighter than CO2 were also lost to space, and the surface warmed by many 100s of oC. On the Earth, such a runaway is simply not possible, because most of the carbon, that can then form CO2, is locked up in the lithosphere. We can’t emit enough CO2, either through anthropogenic influences or naturally, to undergo a runaway.”

A few comments.
“This would be things like changes to the solar flux,”
This happens on a simple yearly basis due to the elliptical orbit
volcanic eruptions,
Clouds deserve a mention. Both reduce the flux.
“and our release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”
The crux of the matter and also any concerns re possible runaway climates.

“A runaway, on the other hand, typically refers to what happened on Venus”
A description often mooted but not strictly correct on 2 grounds.
Venus’ atmosphere and temperature is due to its size, composition and distance from the sun [orbit]
No runaway involved.
Second the runaway scenario involves an unrealistic approach to the actual scientific effects that can happen.
“Feedbacks generally cannot be negatively greater than the initiating force” Lucia.
Now I understand that some things appear to.
Super balls would be a good example.
The atmospheric temperature and surface temperature of the Earth and Venus.
The problem with free energy problems is that they cannot actually exist.
If the earth, atmosphere or not, continued to grab and build up energy from the sun, not releasing all of it back to space. It would eventually become hotter than the sun but unable to radiate this heat.
Runaway models and ideas are based on this unrealistic approach.

Note nowhere is this a denial of atmospheres heating up in response to GHG. Just the misapplication of the idea of retained heat constantly building up forever.

 

Ramanathan is much brighter than I will ever be.
Energy flows are very complex
OK.
What I am trying to say is that the 390 emitted at the surface is being double counted.
It is being double counted because you cannot make energy out of nothing.
There is only, repeat only 237 coming in all the time.
There is only 237 going out, all the time.
You and he know that

Take a step back.
Where is this 390 being emitted From the surface come from in the first place?
Not a new source.
Only partly from the 169 of shortwave energy that Directly hits the ground.

Note that even that 169 does not leave as infrared energy 22, is sensible heat and and 76 is latent heat.
That leaves 71 Mw only to radiate back the atmosphere as IR.
(Of which 10 % goes straight through to the TOA without touching the sides)

How do we turn 64 MW into 390?

The answer is the Greenhouse effect, using a combination of the actual energy, latent energy sensible energy In the system = 169, plus IR components absorbed in the atmosphere already.
10 strat, 58 troposphere, obviously 237*.
( note some not contributing to GHG as goes direct back to space)

We have 237* in the atmosphere causing back radiation of 319 to add to the 71 giving a total of 390 being emitted as radiation. 498 total energy reaching the ground when you consider latent and sensible heat losses.
This back radiation of 319 is not new energy.
It is just fairly instantaneous heating up of the surface to the right heat level to radiate enough heat to keep it at that level.
It is not 150 MW being permanently trapped in the system.
It is a description of the energy transfers from atmosphere to ground and ground to atmosphere as the 237 works its way Down through the atmosphere and back out.
You could even describe it as a delay in the energy getting to the real surface rather than as a buildup of energy in the system, and a delay getting back out again.

quotes

“Be yourself; everyone else is already taken.”    ? Oscar Wilde

 To thine own self be true.
Brevity is the soul of wit.‘       (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2) William Shakespeare.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”   ? Albert Einstein

  “So many books, so little time.”     ?  Frank Zappa

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.”  ? Friedrich Nietzsche

“You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.”    ? Mae West

“Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”     ? Mahatma Gandhi [Rotary theme

“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”   ? Mark Twain

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”  ? Mark Twain

“It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”   ?   J.K. Rowling

“I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.”  ? douglas adams, The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” ? Oscar Wilde, 

“They’re all dead. Everybody’s dead, Dave.”   Holly: Red Dwarf TV

Football quotes

“he’s a good ordinary footballer”           jack dyer on peter bosustow

“The ox is slow but the earth is patient” Mick Malthouse
the line  is an ancient Buddhist proverb, made up for the 1983 Tom Selleck movie High Road to China.

“footballers are like sausages … you can fry them, grill them, bake them … they’re still sausages”        – yabby jeans

yogi bera

No one goes there nowadays, it’s too crowded.
Baseball is 90% mental and the other half is physical.
Always go to other people’s funerals, otherwise they won’t come to yours.

 

 

A young man was an earnest seeker after the meaning of life.

He decided to consult the wisest person on the earth and traveled to Tibet to see the Dalai Lama. After a long and arduous journey through the snow fighting off Yeti’s he found the wise man in a temple.

I see you are a  true  seeker , my son , he said but I am afraid that  we have not yet found the answer. I can help you in your search by directing you to someone else who may know. The great Aztec priest in Machu Picchu.

He  set  off again across the oceans and climbed the Andes fighting off hordes of angry Llamas until he reached the priest of the holy temple. “We too have not found the answer despite the centuries”  he said. “There is one wiser though. Someone who gave me the direction I was seeking when I was a young man too. A hermit who lives in a cave  in the middle of Antarctica.”

1. Cheered up by this prospect the young man set off for Antarctica. Battling his way through hordes of polar bears he at last came to an icy cave with a hermit inside and asked his question.

The Direction is south , young man. The meaning of life is to have a working compass.  This is the North pole.

2  Cheered up by this prospect the young man set off for Antarctica. Battling his way through hordes of penguins he at last came to the  icy cave with the  hermit inside and asked his question.

The Hermit looked at him, shook his head and said the direction you seek is  North.