I’m off on a small adventure today, chasing and logging a USHCN weather station which had been misidentified in the early days of the surfacestations project.
One of the results of the project is that it forced NCDC to provide better metadata in their online MMS database. This includes adding a USHCN flag to identify which stations were in fact USHCN from the more numerous COOP stations. When we started, lat/lons were coarse, and there was no such identification. Now there is and ID and the lat/lons are accurate enough to locate the stations reliably.
I have a feeling this one will be interesting, given the description of the location.
In the meantime, talk quietly amongst yourselves, don’t make be come back here.
😉
Mike Hohmann,
I too, in the ’80s, was scared by the Venutian story. However, quite apart from Venus being much closer to the Sun and receiving more energy, it also has a much more massive atmosphere. Yes, it is 100 atmospheres at the surface, and 500C. But, at the altitude where the atmospheric pressure is 1 atmosphere, equivelent to Earth’s surface, the temperature is more or less the same as at the Earth’s surface.
The lapse rate seems almost to be a universal constant. I suggest you Bing “lapse rate”.
Alvin, I always suspected Patagonia of Deep Greenery, and hence never bought stuff from them (don’t feed the monkey). Now you prove it. Ta, mate!
It’s like 1859. BHO is James Buchannan. The Tea Party has arrived on the scene just like the Republicans had just arrived in 1855. The Cold Civil War we are currently in will go hot in the urban areas in 2014.
Re the psychology of skeptics, I think it’s strongly connected to the essential difference between experiential learners and formulaic learners. In yesterday’s topic on the cartoon about technicians, note how many WUWT readers are techs. Also note that many serious meteorologists and engineers are ‘skeptics.’ When your mental focus and experience rely on accurately measuring some aspect of reality, finding and justifying a baseline, and interpreting data, you can see the problem with the CO2 theory in an instant. Lagging, not leading. That’s all you need to see. And when you’ve worked around research in any field at all, you know a lot about the corrupting influence of tenure, careerism and peer review!
The people who buy the theory are either theoreticians who live on the level of pure math, or complete non-scientists who don’t know how corrupt science has become, and tend to trust experts because experts have Advanced Degrees, which are the modern equivalent of aristocratic titles.
Federal judge throws out Obama drilling rules.
Doc MArtin,
A famous boot indeed.
However water is densest at 4C, and the bottom of shallow seas and deep lakes are 4C. Warmer or colder water float above the 4C water. Not sure what happens when water is under 100 atmospheres of pressure. It is incompressible, though.
Trust me, I’ve been there as a Scuba diver.
Open thread!
Today I’m going to introduce my 5 year old son to some REAL culture! Star Wars – A New Hope (note I call it the 1979 name, not the remade name). 🙂
jim karlock,
Good answers for Pokerguy. When I’m discussing the “carbon” scare, I like to ask the other person to tell me exactly how much CO2 is in the air. Most don’t know that it’s a minuscule 0.00039 of the atmosphere [0.039%]. And it’s good advice to never get mad. Smile and act superior.☺
@John Whitman
I haven’t read Directive 51, but Niven, Flynn and Pournelle’s “Fallen Angels” seems to be a scarily possible near future (though they are too optimistic by far – they assume permanent human habitation in space). Also about what happens when the enviro-crazies take over.
Full book is offered free online by the publisher here: http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/067172052X/067172052X.htm?blurb
DocMartyn says:
August 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm
In all seriousness I wish to know why the bottoms of the oceans are much colder than the surface.
I know the surface gets sunlight during the day and radiates heat at night.
What I don’t understand is why radiant heat is not trapped at the bottom.
Why is IR radiation from the surface not been trapped at the bottom of the ocean?
——————–Reply;
when the polar ice at either pole freezes in its respective winter, it squeezes out most of the salt that accumulates into the close to 2c sea water that then becomes denser than the warmer or fresher water, due to both the fact that water gets densest at around 4 to 2 degrees C and the more salt is added to the solution. This colder denser salter water drops to the bottom of the oceans and spreads out covering the worlds ocean floors, Most of the heat loss from the poles is moved this way, when the heat loss is fast enough then sea ice forms and as it thickens it starts to insulate the 4 to 6 degree C sea water, as it spreads it regulates the limit of heat that can escape into space.
The reason Tenbreth cant find the missing heat in the depths of the oceans is that due to any warming, from contact with warm spots on the sea floor, the slightly warmer water is less dense and rises slowly back to the surface until it finds water the same temperature, the deep currents that are assisted by lunar declinational tidal disturbances, helps to regulate the changes in medium flow rates of these deep currents, but the main driver is the amount of heat loss at the poles.
At the same time lunar declinational tidal effects in the atmosphere vary over an 18.6 year cycle from min to max angle at culmination, changing the turbulence patterns in the atmosphere by driving the Rossby waves and movements of the jet streams, as the angle between the current lunar and solar declination goes in and out of concurrence. The large blocking patterns seen in the atmosphere form when the solar and lunar declination is close to the same, and the loopiness of the wave patterns is enhanced, the resultant timing of the pattern enhancement shifts through the seasons as the relationship evolves over the 18.6 year Mn period.
Long term patterns of ICE/NO ICE changes in the arctic follows the effectiveness of the transfer of equatorial heat into the polar regions, that effect the balance between “the sea water cooling enough to freeze” or just create dense water for the bathyscaphe cold water cyclic circulation which gets taken care of first. When there is enough cooling in the depths to displace the thinning warm layer on the oceans surface then it is easier to form more polar ice.
The whole process is just another three phase thermostatic process that helps to regulate the earths climate, which is why a lot of people are keenly watching the sea ice balance.
Roger Sowell says:
August 13, 2011 at 11:25 am
I’m presently reading Merchants of Doubt, by Naomi Orestes and Erik Conway. Specifically, Chapter 6 on “The Denial of Global Warming.” Has anyone else read this? If you have, what are your thoughts on that chapter?
***
Roger – in my country (NZ) most Global Warming books disappeared from the bookshops a year or more ago. Such books that are left are mostly being remaindered. No-one is reading or buying them.
DocMartyn says:
August 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm
In all seriousness I wish to know why the bottoms of the oceans are much colder than the surface.
I know the surface gets sunlight during the day and radiates heat at night.
What I don’t understand is why radiant heat is not trapped at the bottom.
Why is IR radiation from the surface not been trapped at the bottom of the ocean?
———-
It’s the ocean circulation between equator and poles.
The surface water is warmed most at the equator and currents move it to the poles where it radiates it’s heat to space and cools. When it cools it also sinks and forms deep currents that return to the equator.
Short answer the deep cold water comes from the poles.
Propaganda is like arrest warrants, once the intended are jailed (Taxed) the paper work is sent on to those still free, who think for themselves.
Mike Hohmann says:
August 13, 2011 at 1:40 pm
As a complete non-scientist I am curious regarding the question whether there is a greenhouse effect on Venus with all its high atmospheric CO2 content. A guy I came across via Google says NO, there isn’t, but I am not competent to find out whether there is some merit in his argument and its implication regarding AGW, or whether it’s balderdash. Here’s the link: http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Comment anyone?
————-
Some people get cause and effect confused. So it’s balderdash.
The incorrect argument used is based on the correct observation that there is a temperature gradient between the surface and the top of atmosphere and that accounts for the surface temperature of Venus.
The temperature gradient is related to the atmospheric pressure or more simply the amount of atmosphere on Venus. Which is also correct as far as it goes.
But an additional important factor that is mislaid in the incorrect analysis is the height of the atmosphere.
It’s easy to prove that pressure is not the single factor that determines planetary surface temperature. A thought experiment suffices:
Turn off the sun. Allow the temperature of the surface of Venus to fall below the freezing point of the atmosphere. Let’s say the temperature goes from 500C to -200C. The pressure at 500C was 50 atmospheres or whatever, it makes no difference to the argument.
What is the new atmospheric pressure at -200C?.
Answer; exactly the same, 50 atmospheres.
In short no matter what the surface temperature is, the pressure is always the same.
Putting this the other way around you can have any surface temperature you like for the surface of a planet, the surface pressure is irrelevant.
The surface temperature of the planet is determined by solar heating of the surface and also by how much the atmosphere slows down the passage of the surface heat to outer space.
“He (Fred Singer) has defended himself many times, here for instance”
It is a matter of record that Singer posted a false claim (most glaciers are increasing) on his website, and when challenged, sourced the claim to a study in ‘Science’ that was a complete fabrication. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists
An outright lie. I think anyone behaving in this manner forfeits the right to be taken seriously, certainly Singer is no scientist. Some might even say that such behaviour damages the image of climate scepticism. Perhaps somebody would care to ‘defend’ that?
Judy F. says:
August 13, 2011 at 2:45 pm
===========
Thanks for the reply and info.
I never knew.
Latitude misleads
———
That is the way they explain the lack of measured sea level rise…….
———
They don’t say that at all.
———-
So, the more ice melts, the more water goes into the oceans, the more weight pushes the sea floor down more……no measured sea level rise at all
———-
Bad Story telling. Can’t happen because the density of rock is much higher than the density of water.
Phil Hutchings says:
August 13, 2011 at 2:52 pm
) we have sparse stations, some showing cooling. Surely we don’t weight these all equally in working out global “average” temperatures, do we?
Anybody?
———-
The temperatures are weighted according to area as you surmised.
I think you mean 1865. Lincoln was elected to a second term, which he did not finish. I tend to believe in 98 year behavioural cycles . . .
Anthony–
Last night I was looking through your archives, and looked at your first blog — Nov 17, 2006. Almost everyone who posted comments said that they were sad to see you leave the school board. It appears that you actually had spare time on your hands back then. Just wondering if you ever have any spare time these days. It makes me happy to see you occasionally take time off from your blogging to spend time with your family, Families are important.
Best regards —
lp
Here’s a quiz for your Saturday evening entertainment.
Who wrote this?
“Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
The answer can be found at ClimateAudit.
@pokerguy who said “every time I even bring [AGW] up among my liberal friends, it takes about 5 seconds before tempers flare. It just seems so hopeless for now…”
Agreed. The believers either get mad or refuse to debate intelligently. It might be best to get a new set of friends. If that’s too onerous, stop bringing it up in their presence. Nothing short of time will solve the problem. Give them a way to save face by never having to justify their beliefs again. However, if they bring it up and try to provoke you, just smile and say “You know I’m waiting to see some of the more unusual forecasts to come true. I am not willing to modify the economy ‘just in case they might.'”
Rest easy. They don’t. They do, however, respond to loads above them. When glaciers advance over a continent, their weight press the continents downward because the continents, like icebergs, “float” in the semi-fluid mantle. As glaciers retreat, the continents rebound and regain isostatic equilibrium. It’s a slow process. N.A. is still rising slowly where the last glaciers used to be. Melting the ice in Greenland or the Antarctic would have the same effect.
However, by the same reasoning, adding all that fresh water to the oceans should cause the ocean floor to drop a small amount. But I believe that was mentioned in the question.
Philip Clark,
Please don’t post any more links to anything written by the Moonbat, whose source for your labeling Dr Singer a “liar” is that the Moonbat didn’t see it. I wasted 5 minutes of my life reading that mindless drivel.
Really, if that’s the quality of your appeal to authority, you have less credibility than George Moonbat – if that’s even possible.
“I have a feeling this one will be interesting, given the description of the location.”
Too easy, Anthony.
http://i54.tinypic.com/2jfwzed.jpg