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.
Wow! Superb! Nature at it’s most glorious. Have fun Anthony and all.
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:
have a fun and educational expedition!
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.
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!
Eric, it was only built to harvest the subsidies, not the energy.
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?
It’s started to rain here in the Seattle area. As usual, I won’t be able to see even a partial eclipse.
Jim
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.
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
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…
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Lol, so essentially Gleick cleared himself of forging and the Guardian repeats the dishonesty. This is so getting blogged.
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
Wonder how long it will take for this early tropical storm off the SC/GA coast to get the warmers screaming?
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/
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
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.
No sources, no quotes……. I’m wondering if Suzanne Goldenberg didn’t just make this up with Gleick.
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.
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?
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)