Home/BlogI put together this time lapse of twice-daily images from NASA MODIS (flying on the Terra and Aqua satellites), between 11 Dec. 2013 and 15 Feb. 2014. This is the “721” enhancement, which better separates clouds (white) from snow/ice (blue). (Sorry, but it was too much trouble to put a date stamp on every frame).
VERY Nice! Thanks for sharing!
Yes, nice. Thank you, but maybe next time slow it down a bit; it’s dizzying. Also, maybe have some background music to go with it in order to add some perspective, dimension and suspense. Something like the following…what the “Alarmists” think and feel about the “Deniers”, or is it the opposite–I’m not sure anymore with all these labels to keep track of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_1XdSqBQUg
Either way, you know they get mad when you show any kind of ice growth. They’re very selective in how the portray ice; it’s only shown as melting and declining…never growing. Thanks for some balance.
Stick to your photography, Roy, because your misunderstanding #6 about isothermal conditions in an atmosphere without GHG is preventing you from answering questions like …
(a) How does the necessary energy get down into the base of the Uranus troposphere (where it’s hotter than Earth) but where no significant direct solar radiation reaches and no internally generated energy is convincingly evident and no surface exists?
(b) Why is the core of the Moon far hotter than the maximum temperature reached on its surface?
(c) Why hasn’t Venus cooled off when we know that its dark side can cool by 5 degrees in a mere 4 months?
(d) How does the necessary thermal energy get into the surface of Venus during its daytime and raise the temperature from about 732K to 737K?
(e) Why is the thermal gradient in Earth’s outer crust about 20 times steeper than the gradient in the mantle?
(f) Why (as a statistically significant study shows) does an increase in water vapour (and droplets) above a region lead to lower mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures – the exact opposite of what the GH conjecture imagines happens?
(g) What keeps the Earth’s core hot?
Doug (visiting physicist) Cotton:
Stop polluting threads with your inane and irrelevant (not to mention typically completely bogus) rantings! You are not convincing or impressing anyone.
So I take it that you, Curt, cannot answer the seven questions. One more to cross of my list.
I guess you cannot even understand why these questions are highly relevant, because the same processes and laws of physics apply for all planets.
Cotton Doug,
I think what the posters are asking is to stay on topic of the thread which is a time lapse freezing of Lake Superior. I think your ideas are interesting to think about but you should wait until a thread pops up discussing greenhouse effect and how it works.
I did, but I don’t get the impression that Roy wades through 300 comments on a thread like this where I concluded, after many comments, with this one …
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/#comment-104512
I have proved that Roy is wrong in his assumption of isothermal temperatures in the absence of water vapour and radiating gases, and he would also do well to think about the thermal profile on Uranus. Why is it so, Roy?
uppose we had a planet the size of Earth out where Uranus is, nearly 30 times further from the Sun than Earth is. But we give it a 350Km high troposphere like that on Uranus made up of 85% hydrogen, 13% helium and a ceiling of 2% methane confined to the uppermost limits of the atmosphere, absorbing nearly all the solar radiation and maintaining the very cold radiating temperature of about 60K. So what would the temperature of the surface of that planet be without any internal energy generation, or any water vapour or carbon dioxide, or any solar radiation reaching that surface?
Well, look up the temperature at the base of the actual Uranus troposphere and decide whether the surface of our imaginary planet would be hotter or colder than Earth’s surface. Why is it so?