Open Thread Weekend

Off to chase the eclipse with my children, and then travel tomorrow to Heartland conference. Airplane has WiFi so may be able to keep up with posting en-route.

Expect moderation delays today and tomorrow.

Hopefully will post an eclipse image tonight.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Open Thread. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Open Thread Weekend

  1. cui bono says:

    Wow! Superb! Nature at it’s most glorious. Have fun Anthony and all.

  2. Eric Simpson says:

    With the upcoming U.S. elections, it’s important that we continue to raise a stink about green / solar energy fiasco, here and abroad. An outstanding article at thepointmen blog on the absolute debacle of all the solar energy programs is: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/the-sun-is-setting-on-solar-power-the-moneys-gone-and-nobodys-asking-any-questions/
    At that article, in reference to the top picture which shows weedy plants growing over rows of solar cells, I comment:

    I’m looking at the picture in your link of the solar panel farm, and at the bushes that are blocking the sun… ??? I’m thinking, g-zus S, they spent millions of $ on this complex, and … all you need to do is hire a worker to spray some Roundup. It’s not even expensive. Off brands like Remuda are almost 42% concentrated, and I can get a 2.5 gallon jug of that for 99 bucks, which would last a multi-acre solar farm for years, and labor would be about $15.
    What is wrong with these people? They spent millions, even billions. Spend another $17. Who is managing these boondoggles? And looking closer at the plants… that looks like thistle, stinging nettles, which are harsh, but no problem with just a little roundup spray if you get it early. This green energy stuff is a worthless waste, a down the drain money sink. No more.

  3. gnomish says:

    have a fun and educational expedition!

  4. JohnH says:

    No idea if this is true but the timing is suspicious so close to the Heartland Conf

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland

    Gleick cleared of Forging documents. Guardian do not name source and the report is yet to be published.

  5. Otter says:

    briffa, if you read here, you have been thrown under the bus by your buddies mann and schmidt. Please let us know how that ‘irrelevant’ feels to you!

  6. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Eric, it was only built to harvest the subsidies, not the energy.

  7. DocMartyn says:

    Can some one please give me a simple explanation of the thermal-gradients of the oceans?
    1) Why are they hot at the top and cold at the bottom?
    2) Why have the oceans not become iso-thermal over time?
    3) What are the mechanism of heat transfer in the oceans?
    4) What are the overall heat fluxes from top to bottom and bottom to top?

  8. Jim Masterson says:

    It’s started to rain here in the Seattle area. As usual, I won’t be able to see even a partial eclipse.

    Jim

  9. Mike Mangan says:

    Gleick cleared of forgery!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland

    By who, it does not say. Probably the same boobs who “investigated” Mann and CRU. See? They can get away with anything. The press will catch them if they fall.

  10. gnomish says:

    gleick cleared of forgery. cagw machine stomps heartland in the dirt.
    heartland impotent as corporate donors flee.
    additional whining is expected as heartland vainly attempts to squeeze mileage out of their trouncing by heaping additional angular momentum on the ridiculum to claim some imaginary triumph.
    scott denning mocks the heartland conference and monckton’s makeup, even as supermandias struts his red underpants on the outside of his blue leotards to strike fear in the heart of yale editors everywhere

  11. cui bono says:

    Does anyone know the current status of reports (c. 1997-2007) that other Solar System bodies were also experiencing warming? Mars, and even Triton and Pluto were apparently heating up, and Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory believed this was evidence that the Sun was responsible for warming on Earth, and predicted a cooling period starting in 2014.

    Just asking, as I haven’t heard much about it in the last couple of years.

    PS: re breaking “news” on Gleick. The ultimate irony, for it was the stylistic fingerprint of the forged document that allowed Mr. Mosher to call Gleick out in the first place. So it was forged by someone else with an identical style? Something fishy here, as usual…

  12. gnomish says:

    my comment wasn’t censored was it?
    the drubbing of heartland by gleick and the cagw machine is an important lesson.
    the consequences are: heartland loses for lack of shooting back and the cagw machine is reinforced in its conviction of impunity.
    the cawg ridiculum marches on with zero casualties.
    no soup for us.

  13. Eric Simpson says:

    @Robert of Ottawa. “Eric, it [useless solar energy farms] was only built to harvest the subsidies, not the energy.” Great point. The founders of these eyesores, who in the U.S. are almost always top Obama & Dem contributors, regardless of whether the ventures succeed or fail [and fail they all will], are going to make out like bandits, padding their bank accounts with $millions.

  14. vukcevic says:

    If you ever looked at the Mann et al reconstruction of the AMO index, and you were doubtful about its accuracy, now there is a more realistic alternative
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-R.htm
    and it is directly compared to the existing data, which ‘Mann at al’ failed to do. My customary lack of providing more information will be put right shortly, with all data files so Steven Mosher (or anyone else) can reproduce the result.

  15. John West says:

    Since we have an open thread, this might be a good time to make sure we’re all still talking about the same thing as far as the CAGW position goes. As a skeptic, I like to review the available data / assertions regularly just to make sure I’m not missing something.

    If I understand the “supposition” correctly:

    1) Doubling CO2 increases GHE heat flux by 3.7 W/m2, per Q=5.35Ln(pCO2f/pCO2i)

    2) The 3.7 W/m2 heat flux (Radiative Forcing(RF)) warms the surface.

    3) The warmer surface warms the atmosphere and emits more IR.

    4) The atmosphere (especially effective radiative TOA (20km)) must warm enough to emit the additional IR to space.

    5) The climate warms about 1 degree to accomplish the initial radiative “balancing” (Transient Sensitivity(TS)).

    6) The 1 degree C warming causes changes in the system which amplifies the warming to 3 degrees C (Equilibrium Sensitivity(ES)) via an approximate feedback factor (ff) of about 0.8, (note: feedback factor is less than 1, so there’s no claim of runaway GW) per dT=[ES][dRF] & [ES]=[TS]+(ff)[TS]+(ff)^2[TS]+(ff)^3[TS]……… to practical convergence.

    7) 3 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial average would be catastrophic.

    Can the pro-CAGW folks (or anyone else) confirm or deny that the above is the gist of the CAGW position, please suggest changes/edits or explain what’s wrong if you don’t agree with something or feel that it’s a straw man in any way.

    TIA.

  16. James Sexton says:

    Lol, so essentially Gleick cleared himself of forging and the Guardian repeats the dishonesty. This is so getting blogged.

  17. a jones says:

    DocMartyn says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:48 am

    The chief source of heat in the oceans is sunlight striking the surface which only penetrates a few tens of metres so they are in effect stratified and remain so although there is limited mixing near the surface from wave action. So for example in the tropics water temperatures fall rapidly with increasing depth in the first hundred metres or so and then more slowly with increasing depth so that lower layers below a thousand metres or so are at almost constant temperature. Although there is very limited conduction the primary heat transfer is by convection as the great ocean warm currents carry heat towards the poles where the water cools and eventually sinks.returning as cold water towards the tropics more usually as a very deep bulk flow than a sharply defined current. Towards the surface heat flux is not only time dependent, hours, daytime, overnight and through the seasons but also varies widely from place to place so no meaningful overall value can be obtained.

    I hope this helps

    kindest Regards

  18. Don Allen says:

    Wonder how long it will take for this early tropical storm off the SC/GA coast to get the warmers screaming?

  19. DirkH says:

    NatGeo doesn’t know what energy density is; makes a mockery of its reputation, and didn’t notice that Europe has run out of money to waste.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120518-floor-tiles-turn-footfalls-to-electricity/

  20. Kev-in-Uk says:

    DocMartyn says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:48 am
    ”Can some one please give me a simple explanation of the thermal-gradients of the oceans?”

    1) Why are they hot at the top and cold at the bottom?
    because warm water, like warm air – is less dense – so rises. of course there is also salinity differences too, etc,etc.
    2) Why have the oceans not become iso-thermal over time?
    because of thermal differences between the zones/boundaries. i.e, in the tropics the upper surface is warmed, in the poles it’s cooled, etc, etc, – there are other things to consider too, such as river water entry, rainfall, geothermal heat, coriolis effect, tides, etc, etc
    3) What are the mechanism of heat transfer in the oceans?
    in which way? – internally, it has to be mixing via currents, convection and conduction!. externally, you have evaporative heat transfer into the overlying atmosphere, solar heating, and of course the usual conduction from a warmer surface/atmosphere.
    4) What are the overall heat fluxes from top to bottom and bottom to top?
    no flipping idea! – and I cannot for the life of me believe anyone can do anything but make up numbers for this – especially in the deep oceans?

    you asked for it simple! dunno if that helps! LOL

  21. DirkH says:

    DocMartyn says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:48 am
    “Can some one please give me a simple explanation of the thermal-gradients of the oceans?
    1) Why are they hot at the top and cold at the bottom?”

    Water is densest at 4 degree C, this temperature might be somewhat different for salt water, but the important fact is that the temperature where water is densest is different from its freezing point. So water at that temperature sinks, while even colder water, or ice, rises.

    “3) What are the mechanism of heat transfer in the oceans?”

    Water conducts heat very well. So I would say conduction dominates by far.

  22. James Sexton says:

    No sources, no quotes……. I’m wondering if Suzanne Goldenberg didn’t just make this up with Gleick.

  23. DirkH says:

    DocMartyn says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:48 am
    “1) Why are they hot at the top and cold at the bottom?
    4) What are the overall heat fluxes from top to bottom and bottom to top?”

    Sunlight penetrates the upper layers of the ocean and gets progressively absorbed, first the lower frequencies, the reddish hues, later the higher frequencies (longer mean free path, longest for UV).
    So the upper layers get heated (not by LWIR, LWIR does not penetrate more than a skin layer; that energy just promotes evaporation).

    As the UV component of the solar spectrum varies much more over a solar cycle than the visible parts of the spectrum, the depth profile of where how much heating happens should vary measurably over a solar cycle. But I don’t know whether that could be measured; maybe the signal gets too blurred through heat conduction.

  24. Kev-in-Uk says:

    as this is open thread, can I ask Anthony and the Mods about the Tips and Notes page?
    Respectfully guys, it is a drag! I hardly ever try and load it these days – just did (first time in ages)and gave up after a few minutes!! (I’m on broadband too!)
    I know that T&N is supposed to be for little snippets, etc – but I guess it needs emptying more often or something. Only asking…..if wp is so slow with it, is it worth continuing? Perhaps it would be better having a weekly tips and notes page – kinda like the open threads? – then it wouldn’t get so unmanageable?

  25. H.R. says:

    DirkH says:
    May 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    “NatGeo doesn’t know what energy density is; makes a mockery of its reputation, and didn’t notice that Europe has run out of money to waste.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120518-floor-tiles-turn-footfalls-to-electricity/

    So now all you have to do is put ‘em across highway lanes and let the cars power the street lights, eh? I’ll leave the economics of that (payback for install, maintenance, batteries, etc.) as an exercise for the reader ;o)

  26. Luther Wu says:

    “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his exposé of the rightwing Heartland Institute…”
    ______________
    Well, I’m certainly convinced. How about you?

  27. Some European says:

    I share cui bono’s curiosity. I counted 179 known planets and moons in the solar system, not including millions(?) of asteroids, comets etc.
    If measuring temperature on Earth is a tough job, it must be hard on other planets, too.
    Nevertheless, I’m sure we have a rough idea of temperature evolution of at least a few heavenly bodies.
    Does it matter whether they have an atmosphere to be able to determine a solar forcing?
    Lots of questions, too little answers. My uneducated guess is that we are far from getting a clue about all the different factors that might influence climate on others planets and moons: dust storms? orbital factors? gases? water volcanoes, meteor impacts, …?
    If anyone has any useful sources, I’ll be more than happy to bookmark them!

  28. Ed MacAulay says:

    Too much ice for boating!
    “Two rowers from the U.K. have dropped their plan to try to row from St. John’s to England in time for the 2012 summer Olympic Games in London.

    Roz Savage and Andrew Morris said they believe the risk posed by sea ice, bergy-bits and icebergs off the east coast of Newfoundland this year is too high.”
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/20/nl-rowers-cancel-520.html

  29. DirkH says:

    Some European says:
    May 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm
    “If anyone has any useful sources, I’ll be more than happy to bookmark them!”

    All that I have is
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-trace-heat-wave-to-massive-star-at-cent,21088/

  30. Luther Wu says:

    So you have that powerful multi- core CPU in your desktop or laptop and all of that processing power is barely being touched.
    How about putting all of that unused processing power to good use in a way that won’t effect your personal computing needs…
    Join thousands of other volunteers who donate unused processor time to help find a cure for cancer and myriad other diseases!

    http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage

  31. James Sexton says:

    LMAO! I tweeted Suzanne Goldenberg , author of the piece.

    @suzyji read your Gleick article…. no sources for article? Did you and Gleick just invent this, too?

    Now story seems to be gone.

  32. just some guy says:

    Just from pure curiosity, I followed the link at the right of the screen that says

    “tools”,

    “UAH AMSU Daily Temps”

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    And checked out the current daily graph of temps for various lower altitude channels, with all the check boxes filled to see all the past years. It appears that May 2012 is so far proving to be a relatively cold month compared to last ten years. At 25,000 ft, so far its 3rd coldest in 10 years.

    That’s within the troposphere correct? Can someone smarter than me tell me I am reading this correctly?

  33. Latitude says:

    James Sexton says:
    May 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    No sources, no quotes……. I’m wondering if Suzanne Goldenberg didn’t just make this up with Gleick.
    ==============
    I think you scared her……………………..LOL

  34. tonyb says:

    kev in Uk

    Wow! You are the MAN! No sooner do you comment on the length it takes to load tips and notes than the mods reset it to zero. Next step-solving the Euro crisis.
    tonyb

  35. davidmhoffer says:

    DirkH;
    Water is densest at 4 degree C, this temperature might be somewhat different for salt water>>>

    Lots different. The freezing point and the max density point are both lower. This is a VERY important aspect of saltwater vs fresh when discussing processes in the oceans. In a fresh water lake, at freezing point, ice forms on the top, and being less dense than the water below it, floats and acts as an insultating layer. That’s not what happens in salt water. When the freezing point is reached, the salt is forced out of the water, leaving a thin layer of ice on top, but saltier than normal water below, which is now denser than the water below. So, it sinke, bringing up warmer water from the bottom. This process continues until ALL the water, from surface to bottom, it at or very near the freezing point. Only then does the ice thicken.

  36. SteveW says:

    Grauniad appears to have dropped the ‘Gleik Cleared’ story – giving a 404 error now.

  37. Stop Global Dumbing Now says:

    While the conference is important, quality (not to mention educational) time with your kids is more important. Enjoy! Someone post pictures, please.

  38. Kevin Kilty says:

    DocMartyn says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:48 am
    Can some one please give me a simple explanation of the thermal-gradients of the oceans?
    1) Why are they hot at the top and cold at the bottom?
    2) Why have the oceans not become iso-thermal over time?
    3) What are the mechanism of heat transfer in the oceans?
    4) What are the overall heat fluxes from top to bottom and bottom to top?

    I see that others have responded but I’ll try a different tack, here.

    1) The bottom water in all ocean basins originates as water that cooled in polar regions and sank to the bottom. As it has no source of energy to heat it up, it remains cold until it returns to the surface in more equatorial regions, hundreds perhaps thousands of years later.

    2) The oceans continually over-turn. The lateral temperature gradient (tropics to poles) prevents stability; thus they cannot become isothermal.

    3) Water does not have high enough thermal conductivity to compensate for the large distances involved (surface to depth) so convection predominates over conduction as a heat transfer mechanism within the body of the ocean. For an idea of the relative magnitudes of conduction versus convection, divide thermal diffusivity of water (1.5 x 10^(-7) m squared per second), by the product of typical velocity of currents, etc. (1 m/s) and typical distances ( 2,000 m surface to lower ocean) and you’ll see conduction means almost nothing.

    4) Good question, but the important fluxes are primarily horizontal, carrying heat from low latitudes to high, and are a substantial fraction of the flux carried by the atmosphere. Flux from surface to depth over the entire ocean is nil as ocean temperature is pretty close to steady state; there is locally significant flux between surface and depths of a few hundred meters at times (spring and summer in polar regions)–I have no value to report..

  39. juanslayton says:

    The Grauniad Gleick link appears to have gone dead.

  40. Robert of Ottawa says:

    DocMartyn asks @ May 20, 2012 at 11:48 am
    Not sure I have the truth, but many years of scuba diving lead me to conclude

    Can some one please give me a simple explanation of the thermal-gradients of the oceans?
    1) Why are they hot at the top and cold at the bottom?

    The visible spectrum (incoming short wave radiation ISR) penetrates water, which is moderately transparent at these wavelengths. Plankton and silt, etc. reduce this transparency. However, the ISR is either reflected from the water surface or is totally absorbed by the water. As the ISR is absorbed by the top layers, there is less to be absorbed by the lower layers. Hence the higher layers are warmed more than the lower layers.

    2) Why have the oceans not become iso-thermal over time?
    If the oceans were static, then they would, but they are not. There are daily and annual variations in ISR and there are ocean currents that churn the water. Interestingly, the St. Lawrence River is more or less isothermal and its temperature varies from about 30F in winter to 70F plus in the summer. This is because it flows at a rate of 1 knot, and all the layers are well mixed through turbulence.

    3) What are the mechanism of heat transfer in the oceans?
    Conduction and convection and turbulent mixing.

    4) What are the overall heat fluxes from top to bottom and bottom to top?

    ISR is the source of heating of the oceans. Cooling of the oceans at the surface is due to some outgoing long range radiation (OLR), evaporation and turbulent mixing.

  41. G. Karst says:

    JohnH says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:32 am

    No idea if this is true but the timing is suspicious so close to the Heartland Conf

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland

    Gleick cleared of Forging documents. Guardian do not name source and the report is yet to be published.

    It appears that the story has been pulled. At least the linked story is gone.

    My guess is someone went off at half cocked. Typical MSM mistake, would be my guess. GK

  42. Larry Butler says:

    Dear Tropical Storm Alberto:
    Our lawns need watering awfully bad in Charleston.

    Why are you leaving?……………….Darn!
    The lakes need filling, too! Come back!

  43. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    JohnH, Mike Mangan, Gnomish, Cui Bono, James Sexton & Luther Wu say: Gleick….

    I can’t find contact information for Suzanne Goldenberg nor any way to comment on her article. Does anyone have a way to comment on this nonsense (other than this blog)?

    James Sexton says:
    No sources, no quotes……. I’m wondering if Suzanne Goldenberg didn’t just make this up with Gleick.

    She’s been hanging around the Team too much. She does her reporting the same way they do their research.

  44. johanna says:

    Apparently the ‘Gleick cleared’ article has disappeared from the Graundian website, although the adjacent one (also by Suzanne Goldenberg) gloating about Heartland’s loss of sponsors remains.

    Bishop Hill is following this closely, for those who are interested.

  45. Brian H says:

    DirkH says:
    May 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    DocMartyn says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:48 am
    “Can some one please give me a simple explanation of the thermal-gradients of the oceans?
    1) Why are they hot at the top and cold at the bottom?”

    Water is densest at 4 degree C, this temperature might be

    somewhat different for salt water

    , but the important fact is that the temperature where water is densest is different from its freezing point. So water at that temperature sinks, while even colder water, or ice, rises.

    Freshwater lakes only. Salt water isn’t just “somewhat different”, it’s denser all the way down to its freezing point, which is <0°C, depending on concentration. (IIRC, Fahrenheit set 0°F at the coldest he could achieve with salt water before the salt came out of solution and ice began to form.)

  46. copner says:

    You have to read carefully what the Guardian wrote:

    “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging ***any*** documents ”

    The review didn’t just clear him of forging the strategy memo – it also cleared of writing ***any*** forgery!

    He didn’t forge multiple emails to Heartland’s staff, getting them to send him confidential documents. And he didn’t forge emails to “15″ friends, pretending to be a Heartland Insider. He’s not guilty of pretexting. And he’s not guilty of disseminating Heartland’s confidential materials. (according to the review).

    In fact, it’s now clear that Peter Gleick is a completely innocent man, hounded by Heartland for no reason whatsoever. (according to the review)

    I’m sure the Guardian would love to tell us more about the review, who was involved, what procedures were followed and so, on, but I suspect that all they have is a scanned, unsigned PDF, created on an Epson scanner, and sent to them from an anonymous email address. And when the review “leaker” is eventually found, it may well turn out that he can not testify as to the details of the review either – since it was slipped to him anonymously, possibly because he was mentioned by name as a prominent climate scientist in the review.

  47. Brian H says:

    Kev-in-Uk says:
    May 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    as this is open thread, can I ask Anthony and the Mods about the Tips and Notes page?
    Respectfully guys, it is a drag! I hardly ever try and load it these days – just did (first time in ages)and gave up after a few minutes!! (I’m on broadband too!)

    It usually takes me about a minute, once it’s built up to a few hundred posts.

    But see what you’ve done? It’s now gone, cleared for “refreshing”!

    I generally keep it open in a tab, and only reload when making a Reply or reloading FF, etc. Lots of interesting stuff in it that never makes it to the articles. But chasing it all eats time up like a starving polar bear! ;)

  48. dp says:

    The Grauniad has pulled the Gleick story.

  49. Scottish Sceptic says:

    JohnH says: May 20, 2012 at 11:32 am
    No idea if this is true but the timing is suspicious so close to the Heartland Conf
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland.
    Gleick cleared of Forging documents.

    Then it gets mysteriously pulled.

  50. navytech says:

    One more question about ocean thermal gradients.
    In the earth’s crust the deeper the warmer. But in the ocean, the deeper the colder until it stabilizes just above zero and remains constant all the way to the bottom. With molten hot magma beneath, and warm surface conditions above why is there very cold water, and a large quantity of it, in between? Are the oceans that much of a heat sink that it is a legacy of ice ball earth eons ago? Or is it something else?

  51. Steve in SC says:

    I can just see Anthony and his entire family all in welding helmets.
    LOL.

  52. Gail Combs says:

    Don Allen says:
    May 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Wonder how long it will take for this early tropical storm off the SC/GA coast to get the warmers screaming?
    _____________________________
    I do not know about the “Climate Collaborators” but sure had me screaming. I just hope it hits North Carolina mid week.

    The jet stream has been really weird all week BTW.

  53. stan says:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-phrenology_644420.html

    Demolishing the ‘science’ behind the Republican brain.

  54. pat says:

    goldenberg’s “gleick cleared” article in the guardian has been “disappeared” it seems.

    404 Page not found
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/20/peter-gleick-cleared-heartland

    however, this – which will no doubt interest Gleick – has been “found”:

    20 May: Nature: Amanda Mascarelli: Source found for missing water in sea-level rise
    Human use of water contributes markedly to rising tides
    A team of researchers reports in Nature Geoscience that land-based water storage could account for 0.77 millimetres per year, or 42%, of the observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. Of that amount, the extraction of groundwater for irrigation and home and industrial use, with subsequent run-off to rivers and eventually to the oceans, represents the bulk of the contribution.
    Taikan Oki, a global hydrologist at the University of Tokyo and an author on the paper, says that he was initially “astonished” at how well the team’s estimates of terrestrial water usage filled the deficit between the observed sea-level rise and what was accounted for by thermal water expansion and melting ice…
    Both teams used models to simulate the contribution from groundwater extraction, but Bierkens’ team relied on reported data whereas Oki’s team computed the total amount of groundwater pumped around the world and cross-checked its findings in certain regions. Each team acknowledges that its simulations have limitations and says that more on-site measurements of groundwater use are needed.
    Nevertheless, the message is clear, says Yadu Pokhrel, a postdoctoral researcher in global hydrology at Rutgers University in New Jersey and lead author of the latest study.
    http://www.nature.com/news/source-found-for-missing-water-in-sea-level-rise-1.10676

  55. Gunga Din says:

    Luther Wu says:
    May 20, 2012 at 2:28 pm
    “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his exposé of the rightwing Heartland Institute…”
    ______________
    Well, I’m certainly convinced. How about you?
    ================================================================
    No bias to see here. Move along ………

  56. James Sexton says:

    Louis Hooffstetter says:
    May 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    She’s been hanging around the Team too much. She does her reporting the same way they do their research.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I tweeted her twice. The first time asking for sources to the story. The second time asking for an explanation as to why the story has been disappeared. She didn’t respond to me, but only tweeted about HI losing donations.

    A bit of research shows that her reporting has fallen under great suspicion before, though not related to climate. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/gleick-seemingly-now-un-cleared-of-forgery/#comment-10921

  57. Gail Combs says:

    stan says:
    May 20, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-phrenology_644420.html

    Demolishing the ‘science’ behind the Republican brain.
    ______________________
    Politicians HAVE a (thinking) BRAIN? Thats news to me. I thought they only had a hind brain set on GREED.

  58. Cal65 says:

    Pretty good replies on ocean temperature. The is one additional aspect: the warm and cold water spheres. The warm water sphere is essentially the annulus of water from the surface down to a few hundred to a few thousand feet depending. It’s motion is driven by wind shere and the coriolis committee and forms the great gyres. Below that is the cold water sphere formed by spreading of cold water that forms at the surface in polar regions. there it sinks and spreads north and south. it still gets colder the deeper you go but most of the colder happens from the surface to the bottom of the warm water sphere. look at world wide thermoclines. get a book on physical oceanography.

  59. Steve in SC says:

    Just psychobabble Gail.

  60. michael hart says:

    Ed MacAulay says:
    May 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Too much ice for boating!
    “Two rowers from the U.K. have dropped their plan to try to row from St. John’s to England in time for the 2012 summer Olympic Games in London.

    Roz Savage and Andrew Morris said they believe the risk posed by sea ice, bergy-bits and icebergs off the east coast of Newfoundland this year is too high.”
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/20/nl-rowers-cancel-520.html
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    They could still easily get here before summer does…

  61. mildaykerr says:

    I’m glad to see that renewables are displacing fossil fuel for power generation.

    According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the International Energy Agency, investment in renewables for power production rose from $50bn in 2004 to $260b in 2011. Over the same time investment in fossil fuel power production fell from $250b to $40b.

    Graphed here… http://thisnessofathat.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/fossil-fuel-dependence-dead-end.html

  62. _Jim says:

    Oops – mods, one stuck in the spam filter (one too-many odd links I suspect).

    TIA _Jim

  63. gp_home says:

    Seems the guardian article is gone on Peter Gleik. I even googled the article and it comes up as not found.

  64. Mac the Knife says:

    Rats!!!! Overcast and drizzling, just south of Seattle!
    ‘No eclipse for you!’ Damn eclipse Nazi…..

  65. Anthony Scalzi says:

    navytech says:
    May 20, 2012 at 5:05 pm
    One more question about ocean thermal gradients.
    In the earth’s crust the deeper the warmer. But in the ocean, the deeper the colder until it stabilizes just above zero and remains constant all the way to the bottom. With molten hot magma beneath, and warm surface conditions above why is there very cold water, and a large quantity of it, in between? Are the oceans that much of a heat sink that it is a legacy of ice ball earth eons ago? Or is it something else?
    ——–

    It’s because rock is a terrible thermal conductor, more of an insulator. Also because the only two means of heating the ocean are via the sea or underwater volcanism/hot springs. The sun can only heat the top several hundred feet or so.

    When newly created at the midocean ridges, oceanic crust is hot. However the upper layer is very porous, owing to the way lava is deposited in pillow basalts. This porosity allows cold bottom water to circulate, cooling the rock very effectively. The warmed water then emerges in hot springs or black smokers, where it quickly rises away from the ocean floor, being replaced by more cold water. Large plumes of hot water from eruptions can form vortexes. As oceanic crust moves away from the mid ocean ridges, the thermal flux slows dramatically, approaching the low rate at which it conducts through the rock from the mantle.

  66. John West says:

    Sorry, I didn’t realize the book had been written by anti-science nuts, how dare they suggest late 20th century warming isn’t 100% anthropogenic. /sarc

    http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/chapter05/Images/Fig5-14.htm

  67. jorgekafkazar says:

    “A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his exposé of the rightwing Heartland Institute…”
    ______________
    Luther Wu says: “Well, I’m certainly convinced. How about you?”

    Could be true. Assuming, of course, that there’s another Peter Gleick who (1) didn’t steal the Heartland documents and (2) is an actual scientist.

  68. pat says:

    we are not “real people”…

    19 May: San Juan Capistrano Patch: Justin Petruccelli: Water Wizards Ponder Future
    The occasion was the Orange County Water District’s 2012 Water Summit, and the topics ranged from water-stingy fabrics to global warming…
    The highlight of the early morning sessions was a presentation by Nobel Laureate and renowned climate change expert Dr. Michael Mann, who provided a historical perspective on climate change and how it could ultimately affect water levels and the environment as a whole if left unchecked…
    “Some of the attacks against the science are actually thinly veiled attacks against the scientists who are just like me out there doing research. They use words like ‘hysteria’ and ‘fraud’ and try to paint this picture of climate scientists as being part of some sort of conspiracy to take away their liberty to emit CO2 into the atmosphere. I don’t think real people worry about that.”…
    “…There are so many challenges in our lives, and it’s easy to sort of shove these things aside as this long-term problem that’s way off in the future. That’s where it become essential that policy-makers help us establish incentives.”…
    http://sanjuancapistrano.patch.com/articles/oc-water-summit-brings-together-public-private-stakeholders

  69. Toto says:

    Can any of the climate models predict the pre-change climate for all the regions to match the Köppen climate classification?

  70. James Sexton says:

    mildaykerr says:
    May 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    I’m glad to see that renewables are displacing fossil fuel for power generation.

    According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the International Energy Agency, investment in renewables for power production rose from $50bn in 2004 to $260b in 2011. Over the same time investment in fossil fuel power production fell from $250b to $40b.

    Graphed here… http://thisnessofathat.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/fossil-fuel-dependence-dead-end.html
    =================================================
    Yes, wouldn’t that be nice if a couple of things were true? Like one renewables being almost useful…. it just so happens they’re not. And two, if the actual numbers graphed reflected any sort of reality. ….. it just so happens they don’t. And as a bonus “wouldn’t it be nice”…… wouldn’t it be nice if some people would actually read what was sourced…… http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-10/big-oils-big-in-biofuels …… And, you really, really shouldn’t buy into what is stated at the “Conversation”. They’re a beautiful group of people, they just aren’t grounded very well.

  71. nemo says:

    H.R…
    “I’ll leave the economics of that (payback for install, maintenance, batteries, etc.) as an exercise for the reader ;o)”

    The whole idea of harvesting power off of cars by installing plates in the road or wind turbines along road edges has been brought up time and again, and it isn’t so much maintenance, install and batteries that are the problem. The real problem is that by breaking up the wind or slowing down the road, you are reducing people’s mpg and pretty much making a very inefficient gasoline powered generator .

  72. jonathan frodsham says:

    “www.guardian.co.uk › Environment › Climate change skepticism
    12 hours ago – A review has cleared the scientist Peter Gleick of forging any documents in his exposé of the right wing Heartland Institute’s strategy and …”

    Not there it has been removed!

  73. DirkH says:

    mildaykerr says:
    May 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm
    “I’m glad to see that renewables are displacing fossil fuel for power generation.

    According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the International Energy Agency, investment in renewables for power production rose from $50bn in 2004 to $260b in 2011. Over the same time investment in fossil fuel power production fell from $250b to $40b. ”

    mildaykerr, what would you rather invest in. Stuff that is guaranteed subsidies over 20 years or stuff that has to compete with the subsidized stuff.

  74. Brian H says:

    DirkH;
    I’ll still lay odds that the $40bn fossil fuel investments end up producing 10X the power output that the $260bn in renewables does.

  75. All renewables are subsidy farming. Businesses are in the business of making a profit, and they especially like subsidies that are added into the price of some product we all buy like electricity. Essentially, governments mandate a higher price for their product, and even better, higher and higher prices in the future, which explains why businesses rush into these markets.

    And renewables aren’t replacing fossil fuels. World coal consumption rises year after year and that won’t change in the foreseeable future, bar some major economic collapse.

    http://rainforests.mongabay.com/energy/coal.html

  76. Gail Combs says:

    mildaykerr says:
    May 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm
    “I’m glad to see that renewables are displacing fossil fuel for power generation.

    According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance and the International Energy Agency, investment in renewables for power production rose from $50bn in 2004 to $260b in 2011. Over the same time investment in fossil fuel power production fell from $250b to $40b. ”
    ______________________________________
    HMMmmmm
    Sounds like sheep to the slaughter to me. Hype the stock, fan the buying frenzy and get the heck out while the stocks are selling high.

    This is what Al Gore and Maurice Strong did with Molten Metals Inc. In looking up a link to the Molten Metals Inc scam I find I am not the only one who has made that connection.

    ….To begin to understand these phenomena, it is illuminating to review the record of the original, the prototypical failed green technology scandal. It began in 1995 when Vice President Al Gore visited Fall River, Massachusetts to offer an Earth Day speech touting Molten Metals Inc. This company failed soon thereafter.

    [T]he stock plunged from $28 to $14 in a single day in October 1996 when the company lost Department of Energy funding for a research contract. Doubts were raised about the commercial viability of Molten Metal’s waste disposal system.

    In the aftermath of this collapse, there was a congressional investigation. However, House Republicans could not prove that Peter Knight — who was Al Gore’s senatorial aide and chairman of the Clinton-Gore election campaign — had used his connections to the vice president when lobbying very successfully on behalf of MMT. In addition, there was a suspicious grant of stock to Mr. Knight’s son — perhaps an inept attempt to conceal the ownership of these shares. One can only wonder whether other “insiders” successfully concealed their ownership in MMT. According to a lengthy article in the New York Times, Nov. 4, 1997:

    The Republicans want to know why Zachary Knight, the son of a lobbyist, Peter S. Knight, was given nearly $20,000 in stock by William M. Haney 3d, the chairman of Molten Metal Technology Inc., a Massachusettes [sic] environmental-technology company. The gift from Mr. Haney and his wife came just two weeks after Mr. Knight was named chairman of the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign in May 1996.

    .. Before voluntarily giving up his job as a lobbyist, Mr. Knight had helped the company win $32 million in Federal grants while urging its executives to contribute and raise $132,000 for the Democrats and President Clinton’s re-election effort.

    [...]

    The Republicans plan to argue that Molten Metal won most of its grants because Mr. Knight used his ties to Mr. Gore and because the firm and its employees contributed heavily to the Democratic Party. Mr. Haney is a longtime supporter of Mr. Gore.

    [...]

    Indeed, the Republicans will try to show that Mr. Knight helped arrange for Mr. Gore to visit Molten Metal’s plant in Fall River, Mass., to commemorate Earth Day in April 1995. At the ceremony, Mr. Gore described the company’s hazardous waste cleanup technology as ”a shining example of American ingenuity, hard work and business know-how.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/gore_and_the_democrats_green_graft_machine.html

    I think boys and girls we are about to see the massive shearing of the sheep just before the collapse of the “Green Energy Bubble” Expect to see these highly promoted companies dead in the water in a year or so as their “guaranteed subsidies” bite the dust.

  77. Roger Carr says:

    Bishop Hill saved a copy of the article “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose”. here.

  78. navytech says:

    Many thanks to Anthony Scalzi and John West who took the time to give a most helpful answer to my question as well as provide a valuable resource for the future. My knowledge of ocean dynamics is currently centered around thermohaline, deep sound channel and deep layer issues.

    My question was always: How could the earth, which started as a molten sphere and warmed by the sun develop into its current state with a vast very cold heat sink. Now I have the beginnings of an answer. And a bit of reading to do. That’s always a good thing! :)

    Again, many heartfelt thanks!

  79. Steve Keohane says:

    pat says: May 20, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    Very interesting Pat. A few years ago, using ocean area and UN numbers on water pumped from ground for irrigation, it was easy to calculate that if all irrigation water ended up in the oceans, it would raise the level 2.2mm/year. Of course not all will end up in the ocean, but it certainly puts the catastrophic rise of 3.3mm/year in perspective.

  80. G. Karst says:

    Roger Carr says:
    May 21, 2012 at 3:13 am

    Bishop Hill saved a copy of the article “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose”. here.

    That copy disappeared faster than the original. What is going on behind the curtain? I smell a scandal. WUWT – GK

  81. Annie says:

    G. Karst@ 6.41 am:

    Copy gone…I tried to look at it too but it’s gone.

  82. Leo Morgan says:

    Suzanne Goldberg did not write an article claiming Peter Gleick was cleared.
    Peter Gleick did, pretending to be Suzanne Goldberg.

    More seriously, I found this extract of an article from the 1970′s, that seems to be one of those that the consensus declared ‘never happened, it was only alarmist newspapers’.
    It refers to the warmer ‘Global climactic optimum’, and speculates on the end of our current interglacial. Here’s the extract. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/178/4057/190.extract
    Unfortunately for me, it’s paywalled.
    Could someone with access let me see a copy? It’s also possible that Anthony will get an article from this, so if you could act before this too is 404′d, that would be great.
    I’ll give my e-mail address in a form that I hope will defeat spambots- it’s jleomorgan at google’s gmail.com.

  83. vigilantfish says:

    Hi Leo,

    I’ll send you a copy of the Science article.

    Cheers!

  84. Paul Vaughan says:

    @vukcevic (May 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm)

    Digging through my files today I realized I had isolated the dBz curve you’ve illustrated here [ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm ] on April 29, 2010. If you put this [ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif ] alongside the other, you’ve got an even more interesting story. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-R.htm also looks interesting. Keep going.

  85. Ed Mertin says:

    One thing about politicians though, learning how to make money off them makes them slightly more bearable. Smith & Wesson reported sales are a blowout. Ruger reported a blowout quarter also.

    Long ago should have let gays and lesbians marry. Let abortion go.
    Because in three generations there will be no democrats.

  86. Roger Carr says:

    G. Karst and Annie — the copy of “Peter Gleick cleared of forging documents in Heartland expose” I linked to above and which you cannot get still opens at that URL I posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:13 am.

    Here is the URL: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Gleick%20cleared%20of%20forging%20documents.pdf

    I have also saved a copy which I will email to anyone who asks me: RogerCarr AT datacodsl.com

  87. Ammonite says:

    John West says: May 20, 2012 at 1:24 pm: summarising CAGW assumptions…
    5) The climate warms about 1 degree to accomplish the initial radiative “balancing” (Transient Sensitivity(TS)).
    6) The 1 degree C warming causes changes in the system which amplifies the warming to 3 degrees C (Equilibrium Sensitivity(ES))…
    7) 3 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial average would be catastrophic.

    Hi John. Transient sensitivity (TS) does not refer to anticipated top-of-atmosphere temperature change. TS refers to the change in average global surface temperature across a short time period (say 20 years). TS is currently running at ~0.16C/decade (for comparison, the mean of climate models is ~0.2C/decade). TS by itself does not indicate what the equilibrium sensitivity might be nor when it might be reached.

    For possible effects of a 3C warming above the pre-industrial average (the median of a host of equilibrium sensitivity estimates) please refer to Mark Lynas book Six Degrees. Amongst other challenges, +3C has the potential to adversely affect agriculture in significant portions of the globe. Lack of adequate, affordable food implies rapid destabilization in affected areas.

  88. vukcevic says:

    Paul Vaughan says: May 21, 2012 at 7:37 pm
    ……….
    Thanks Paul, I got ‘big picture’ worked out some time ago too
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
    but it takes time to put it all together.
    The North and South run on two different clocks
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NvS.htm
    it would make sense to keep in mind these fundamental differences.

  89. John West says:

    @Ammonite

    Thanks for the input, however, I have to disagree with your point about TS not indicating ES. I do agree that TS says nothing about the timing of ES, but the magnitude of ES is a function of TS. ES is essentially TS and the net feedbacks from the temperature change due to TS.

    Also, I guess my wording wasn’t so great, when I said climate warms about 1 degree I was referring to average global temperature not TOA. Good edit! Thanks again.

  90. Paul Vaughan says:

    vukcevic, Can you at least cryptically describe in a sentence or two how you get the blue curve here [ http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-R.gif ] now (including data sources)?

  91. John West says:

    After some rewording:
    1) Doubling CO2 increases GHE heat flux by 3.7 W/m2, per Q=5.35Ln(pCO2f/pCO2i)

    2) The 3.7 W/m2 heat flux (Radiative Forcing(RF)) warms the surface.

    3) The warmer surface warms the atmosphere and emits more IR.

    4) The earth-atmosphere system as a whole must warm enough for the effective radiative TOA (~20km) to emit the additional IR to space, basically obtain radiative balance.

    5) The climate warms about 1 degree to accomplish the initial radiative “balancing” (Transient Sensitivity(TS)).

    6) The 1 degree C warming causes changes in the system which amplifies the warming to 3 degrees C (Equilibrium Sensitivity(ES)) via an approximate feedback factor (ff) of about 0.8, (note: feedback factor is less than 1, so there’s no claim of runaway GW) per dT=[ES][dRF] and [ES]=[TS] + (ff)[TS] + (ff)^2[TS] + (ff)^3[TS] + (ff)^4[TS] ……… to practical convergence.
    (dT = change in temperature and dRF = change in radiative forcing)

    7) 3 degrees C of warming above pre-industrial average would be catastrophic.

    Are any other changes needed in order to accurately reflect the core assertions of advocates of “climate change action”?

  92. Paul Vaughan says:

    further to Paul Vaughan (May 22, 2012 at 7:37 am) …
    OK: vukcevic, I think I know how you’re getting your AMO driver, but I don’t have access to the data …but you do. Can you please send me your Hudson’s Bay & Siberia Bz data? I believe the coordinates you are using are (60N,95W) & (64N,107E), respectively. Also: What geophysical variables do they use as inputs to the GMF reconstructions? Specifically: Do they use climate, solar, &/or earth orientation parameter variables?

  93. Ammonite says:

    John West says: May 22, 2012 at 7:40 am
    5) The climate warms about 1 degree to accomplish the initial radiative “balancing” (Transient Sensitivity(TS)).

    Hi John. I hope my previous reply on TS didn’t muddy the waters for you. From the literature for climate models, “a measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.”

    Using your definition in 5) above, I understand the point you made in your 7:12am post.

  94. Leo Morgan says:

    @ vigilantfish

    Thanks for that.
    Received and read.
    Lots of thinking yet to be done.

    I was going to ask if anyone here could tell me the temperature of past ‘Global Climactic Optimum(s)*’, then realized I should at least TRY to find it for myself. But clearly I’ve made errors:
    As I read it, this paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018203003675 says the Miocene Climactic Optimum for Central Europe was 17.4 to 22 degrees Centigrade Mean Annual Temperature.
    This article says Central European Annual Temperatures are around 8-12 degrees C Annual temperature.
    The Optimum was vastly warmer than the prophesised thermogeddon?
    Sure I’d like to be the guy who blew away the Catastrophe of CAGW, but I assume I’m just a nebbish who misread his data. Still, can someone give me a reality check?

  95. Leo Morgan says:

    I forgot to give the URL for the second paper- it’s http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/europe.htm

  96. Leo Morgan says:

    Arrgh, I don’t wish WordPress would give me an ‘edit comment’ button, since I’ve seen them abused, but I wish I didn’t make the sort of error and omission I’ve made in my last two posts. Or at least that I could fix them without putting my folly on display.
    I asterisked the expression Climactic Optimum(s) above. I am aware that conventional use and authoritarian dictates alike prescribe that it should be ‘Optima’.
    Nevertheless I advocate the regularization of English. That the Romans used different declensions in Latin 2000 years ago, does not to my mind warrant that 21st Century English-speakers should follow suit.
    ‘Optimums’ may be poor Latin, but it’s better English than ‘Optima’.

Comments are closed.