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.
😉
LazyTeenager says:
August 13, 2011 at 9:53 pm
> Feel free to teach me that rocks float on water.
I have some pumice from Mt. Mazama. (N.B. collected from a roadside outside of Crater Lake Natl Park. You’re not allowed to collect rocks inside Natl. Parks.)
Jim36 commented “But the warmists keep telling us we need to make less CO2.
Why?”
They had to pick something . . . and CO2 was the scapegoat . . . .
Politicians have been banking on the gullible, pollyanna’s since the beginnings . . . .
“Read my lips . . . no new taxes”!!!
I for one can say that until the day comes that I witness a cloud floating across the sky crash and burn . . . that will be the day when I will consider AGW as a possiblity . . . . oh and maybe I will start wearing a burka so the earthquakes will cease in Turkey . . . .
Thanks to all who answered my question on sea level rise if all ice melted.
I’m fully aware that within 100 years, even at the highest rate given for our time, the amount of sea level rise is not that big… This was one of those “what if” questions and I know that to do so would take thousands and thousands of years… By then the next ice age comes and the “what if” never happens.
Bob Diaz
DocMartyn says:August 14, 2011 at 6:04 am
O.K. Let me ask the question in a different way.
Why is the bottom of the ocean not subject to the same radiative heat trapping, coupled to CO2, that is proposed for the atmosphere?
——————————————————————
Because neither infrared (heat) nor visible light get anywhere the bottom of the ocean. IR is absorbed in the top millimeter. Seawater is most transparent to visible light of about 555 nm (blue green) and that is absorbed in about the top 10 meters. Answered a different way, there is no radiation down there.
@ur momisugly Dan in California, re sunlight penetrating sea water.
I’ve heard or read that infra-red does not penetrate the surface, but I’m not so sure about that. It that were true, then how does a solar pond accumulate heat at the bottom of the pond? The sunlight / heat penetrates far into the pond, and is concentrated in the lower layer.
Also, if that were true (IR does not penetrate), then why are in-ground swimming pools hotter when the bottom has dark tiles? They become a passive solar heating system.
link to a solar ponds site http://www.solarponds.com/
LazyTeenager says:
August 13, 2011 at 9:53 pm
u.k.(us) says:
August 13, 2011 at 7:52 pm
LazyTeenager says:
August 13, 2011 at 6:22 pm
=====
Someone needs a geology lesson.
————–
Feel free to teach me that rocks float on water.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Ask and ye shall receive 🙂
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/new-pacific-island.shtml
Sceptic or Skeptic? I’m with Fowler and can “pocket” my pride.
[b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm
By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.
[b]Roger Longstaff[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”
Wrong way round, old chap.
[b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:01 am
Roger Longstaff says:
August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”
“Wrong way round, old chap.”
Maybe I asserted a mere prejudice. Given your response, I am beginning to think that ‘sceptical’ is the accepted spelling and that ‘skeptical’ is archaic. What do you think?
[b]Roger Longstaff[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:48 am
Dear Theo,
My comment was based upon almost 60 years of living in England, and trying my best to speak the Queen’s English. The dreaded “wiki” says:
“DefinitionIn ordinary usage, skepticism (US) or scepticism (UK) (Greek: ‘σκέπτομαι’ skeptomai, to think, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:
(a) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object;
(b) the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; or
(c) the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).
In philosophy, skepticism refers more specifically to any one of several propositions. These include propositions about:
(a) an inquiry,
(b) a method of obtaining knowledge through systematic doubt and continual testing,
(c) the arbitrariness, relativity, or subjectivity of moral values,
(d) the limitations of knowledge,
(e) a method of intellectual caution and suspended judgment.
However (if this is correct) the original Greek uses a “K”, so maybe the US spelling is more accurate.
But we woz ‘ere first!!
[b]Roger Knights[/b says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:57 am
Theo Goodwin says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:01 am
Roger Longstaff says:
August 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
Theo Goodwin says: August 12, 2011 at 6:41 pm: “By the way, ‘skeptical’ is the Brit spelling while ‘sceptical’ is the American spelling.”
“Wrong way round, old chap.”
Maybe I asserted a mere prejudice. Given your response, I am beginning to think that ‘sceptical’ is the accepted spelling and that ‘skeptical’ is archaic. What do you think?
Not according to Britisher Fowler’s classic Modern English Usage :
“The established pronunciation is sk-, whatever the spelling; and with the frequent modern use of septic and sepsis it is well that it should be so for fear of confusion. But to spell sc- and pronounce sk- is to put a needless difficulty in the way of the unlearned, for sce is normally pronounced se even in words where the c represents a Greek k, e.g., scene and its compounds and ascetic. America spells sk-; we might pocket our pride and copy.”
[b]ZootCadillac[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 9:51 am
Theo:
Sceptical is indeed the English spelling, as in English as written in Britain. My understanding of the American spelling is because of the very real and deliberate ‘bastardisation’ ( that’s not an insult to Americans, it’s the proper term for it ) of British English during the pioneer years of American colonisation. I’m going off the top of my head here so don’t take anything as stone cold fact but as far as I am aware most of the settlers travelling west were barely literate and in a bid to make things easier for settlers to communicate with trading posts etcetera the spelling of many words was simplified, often phonetically, just so these people could write the way it sounded. This is why letters deemed superfluous such as the U in rumour, colour etc. were simply dropped. The K in Skeptic probably came about so as not to cause confusion with the soft ‘c’.
Of course ‘sceptic or skeptic might not have been in use by the frontiersmen but it’s the way that American English ( a phrase I dislike immensely as it’s just English, incorrectly used) has developed and been used.
Etymology puts it back to the Greek sképtesthai ( consider, examine) which oddly gave rise to the Latin scepticus and had by that time come to mean ‘initial doubt’. The Greek Skep also gave rise to the English word scope.
just my thoughts.
[b]Theo Goodwin[/b] says:
August 13, 2011 at 10:08 am
ZootCadillac says:
August 13, 2011 at 9:51 am
“Of course ‘sceptic or skeptic might not have been in use by the frontiersmen but it’s the way that American English ( a phrase I dislike immensely as it’s just English, incorrectly used) has developed and been used.”
Thanks much. Actually, it was in use, most likely. They lacked polish not intelligence.
This has to be an all time classic. I just got called a flat earther on twitter for questioning agw theory by a ….Rabbi!
So a man who has blind faith in something which has zero evidence, questions me for challenging a disputed scientific theory!
Apropos of nothing I cam across this video about the IOM TT this evening which shows clearly why it is one the last great tests of man and machine and I am afraid every year kills the people to prove it.
Never any shortage of entrants though who make the many professional eiders who refuse to ride in it, preferring those nice safe circuits, look like the wussies they are. The TT is the real thing not some televised confection adapted for the demure tastes of a modern effete risk averse society.
So enjoy here:
Kindest Regards
Roger Sowell says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
“Also, if that were true (IR does not penetrate), then why are in-ground swimming pools hotter when the bottom has dark tiles? They become a passive solar heating system.”
Good absorbers are good emitters – absorbing light (because they’re black) and emitting their own blackbody radiation. And in this case, as they’re black, they probably approximate theoretical blackbody behaviour rather well.
IR from the sky only penetrates the skin layer, it’s visible light that warms the tiles.
IR from the tiles is immediately absorbed by the water and turned into heat.
Roger Sowell says:August 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
@ur momisugly Dan in California, re sunlight penetrating sea water.
I’ve heard or read that infra-red does not penetrate the surface, but I’m not so sure about that. It that were true, then how does a solar pond accumulate heat at the bottom of the pond?
—————————————————————–
This is a perfect example of the greenhouse effect. Most solar power (daytime incoming) is in the visible range that *does* get to the bottom of shallow swimming pools (shallow compared to the oceans). Heats the water and the tiles, which heat the water. IR is a small fraction of total incoming solar flux, and is absorbed in the top millimeter of water. At night, the lower black body radiation temperature from the pool (planet) is mostly IR, which is only from the top surface. Therefore the sun energy is a net heat input to the swimming pool (planet).
In a related subject, the designers of photovoltaic solar cells try really hard to capture all the visible light, because PV is a poor user of IR. It’s the big thermal solar power farms (e.g. Kramer Junction) that collect incoming radiation of all wavelengths and convert the energy to heat to run a Rankine cycle steam engine to make electricity.
Smokey says:
August 13, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Philip Clarke,
Now that John W has shown Moonbat to be mendacious, you have an opportunity to be a stand-up guy and retract your accusation that Dr Spencer “lied.”
Or, you can prevaricate.
———————————————-
The question is, did Singer lie? In other words, was there really a paper in Science, 1989 that actually said what he claimed it did, that more glaciers were advancing than retreating?
It looks to me that Monbiot was saying there were no papers specifically about “glacial advance or retreat”, whereas John W searched for papers with”‘glacier’ in the text”. But the focus of Monbiot’s or John’s search isn’t the issue. The issue is, did Singer lie? Should be easy enough for someone to pull up the actual paper Singer was referring to, if it exists. If it does, fine. If it doesn’t, he was lying.
So, does the paper exist?
And Smokey please note, I am not accusing anyone of anything.
UN Climate Report Fails to Capture Arctic Ice Thinning Reality: MIT
By IBTimes Staff Reporter | August 14, 2011 4:23 AM EDT
The United Nations’ most recent global climate report “fails to capture trends in Arctic sea-ice thinning and drift, and in some cases substantially underestimates these trends,” says a new research from MIT.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197495/20110814/mit-research-arctic-sea-ice-thinning-hit-new-low-u-n-arctic-predictions-inaccurate.htm
Dan in California says:
August 14, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Roger Sowell says:August 14, 2011 at 12:00 pm
@ur momisugly Dan in California, re sunlight penetrating sea water.
I’ve heard or read that infra-red does not penetrate the surface, but I’m not so sure about that. It that were true, then how does a solar pond accumulate heat at the bottom of the pond?
—————————————————————–
This is a perfect example of the greenhouse effect. Most solar power (daytime incoming) is in the visible range that *does* get to the bottom of shallow swimming pools (shallow compared to the oceans). Heats the water and the tiles, which heat the water. IR is a small fraction of total incoming solar flux, and is absorbed in the top millimeter of water. At night, the lower black body radiation temperature from the pool (planet) is mostly IR, which is only from the top surface. Therefore the sun energy is a net heat input to the swimming pool (planet).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/28/spencer-and-braswell-on-slashdot/#comment-711886
Hey, anyone looking up North at the ice cap? Seems like the WUWT entry for minimum extent prediction looks, um, a little high. Reading your posts above, people, I’d say, in fact, you all look a little high.
Timothy Hanes says:
August 14, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Better to be a little high than a little low. Much nicer weather!
LazyTeenager,
Such an apt handle, rocks float, on molten rocks. Think Crust, Mantle.
Pressure , temperature. Think Diesel engine compression stroke, very hot. Switch off engine, even the compression stroke cools. Venus, Sun drives atmospheric circulation, Gravity is compression stroke, at 100bar, very hot . Switch off Sun, cools down.
Even NASA admits that atmospheric circulation on Neptune is the probable cause of anomalously high (relatively) temperatures there, not accountable by Solar radiation alone.
Julian Braggins says:
August 15, 2011 at 2:27 am
“LazyTeenager,
Such an apt handle, rocks float, on molten rocks. Think Crust, Mantle.
Pressure , temperature. Think Diesel engine compression stroke, very hot. Switch off engine, even the compression stroke cools. Venus, Sun drives atmospheric circulation, Gravity is compression stroke, at 100bar, very hot . Switch off Sun, cools down.”
Compressional heating of a gas only occurs as it is getting squeezed into a small volume. Once the compression stops so does the heating. If you compress a tank of air the tank will get warmer as you fill it. Once you stop adding more air the tank will stop getting warmer and it will begin to cool down to ambient temperature. Maintaining a constant high pressure in the tank will not keep it warm. Atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is constant so there is no compressional heating going on and the high surface pressure will not serve to keep it warm.
The surface of Venus is hot because the dense atmosphere prevents the heat rising from the molten core of the planet from escaping quickly when it reaches the surface. On the earth once that internal heat reaches the surface it has no further roadblocks as it does on Venus.
“Maintaining a constant high pressure in the tank will keep it warm.”
Typo. Should read:
Maintaining a constant high pressure in the tank will NOT keep it warm.
From HuffPo:
“Austin is supposed to be ground zero of the Texas Miracle,” explained Doug Greco, lead organizer with Austin Interfaith, a nonpartisan group of some 30 congregations, schools and unions. “But we have the higher poverty rate and higher child poverty rate–nearly one in three children.” He added that the need for shelter, food and clothing has spiked in the city. “It doesn’t take much to pierce through the rhetoric,” he said.
Austin isn’t supposed to be ground zero for the Texas Miracle. He just made that up out of thin air. Austin is run by democrats. The largest employer is the government which employs one in five people. It’s a liberal stronghold in a conservative state. Move on up to Round Rock or Cedar Park which are outside of Austin’s jurisdiction but are part of the same sprawling population center. The cost of living there is lower, crime is lower, taxes are lower, public schools are better, and businesses (Dell Computer comes to mind) are bailing out of Austin’s jurisdiction to relocate just outside it. I used to work for Dell when it was still in Austin and in the process of moving 20 miles farther up the interstate highway outside of Austin’s jurisdiction in the late 1990’s.
Someone likes the snow!
http://dailybooth.com/rickybru/18298501
Kelvin, better to be right. And I can show about a million posts from this place saying 2007 was a fluke, the ice is recovering, it’s recovered, it’s now an Ice Age!
Like I said, a lotta people over here seem a little high.
Timothy Hanes – Some of us understand that yearly variations in Arctic sea ice are more to do with winds and currents than temperature. The guessing game is just that. This year, there is nothing very unusual about the temperature (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2011.png), but the winds have shifted in the last week or so, and are now acting to spread the ice rather than compress it.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrfnowcast.gif
If ‘now’ is early enough in the season, we end up with a lot more melted ice and a low number. If late enough, a high number. (The guessing game is on extent, not area or volume).
If, as expected, the world continues cooling over the next decade or too, then over time the Arctic ice (NB. Arctic) will trend upwards, but in any one year could be up or down. A bit like “weather vs climate”.
Anyway, enjoy watching the numbers…….
So, since IR does not heat up water, other than the top millimeter, I’m wondering how this device works?
http://www.noblelight.net/infrared_heat_applications/ultrapure_water_applications/index.shtml