Brian Gaze
30 October 2010 06:10:32

Last topic was getting quite long.


Brian Gaze
Berkhamsted
TWO Buzz - get the latest news and views 
"I'm not socialist, I know that. I don't believe in sharing my money." - Gary Numan
Stu N
30 October 2010 08:26:37
Gandalf The White wrote:


Stephen Wilde wrote:




Stu,



The central heating analogy isn't perfect but the purpose was to illustrate just how effective is warm water in heating the air above or around it.

Gandalf's point about the effect of 500 years of high solar activity raising the input to the Thermohaline Circulation yet being completely diffused in the journey along the circuit doesn't work because the THC retains its integrity along the entire track without being totally diffused along the way.

So there is a 'pipe' of sorts.

It is inconceivable that 500 year cycling of solar input to the oceans will not impose some temperature fluctuations along the 1000 to 1500 year route of the THC.

Then you said:


"Also relevant is the fact that the only way energy actually gets into and out of the Earth system is by radiation, which CO2 affects"


Well we know that so the sun isn't unlike a central heating boiler which also provides a single source of energy input. The reference to CO2 is not appropriate because the energy from more CO2 is entirely in the infra red which does not penetrate the oceans significantly if at all. Solar shortwave however gets in up to 200 meters so solar variability has a large effect but CO2 does not.




Stephen, I have done a little research on this...


The THC moves at around 250 miles per day....


I'll leave you and others to do the maths but your assertions don't stack up...  The circulation is measured in a few tens of years not 1,000 to 1,500. 


For your timescales the water has to travel a quarter of a million miles at least.


GTW, where'd you get this info? The fastest part of the THC is probably the Gulf stream, which reaches 5.6mph or 134.4 miles per day. The deep water just inches along much more slowly than this.


 


No, I think the main argument against serious coherence in the signal (I do figure at least some of the characterists of upwelling water are linked to what the world was like when it entered the deep water circulation) is not the speed of the conveyor but the fact that it splits:



 


So a climatic signal would emerge at different times at different places, another source of incoherence.

AIMSIR
30 October 2010 08:56:23

Stu N wrote:


Gandalf The White wrote:


Stephen Wilde wrote:




Stu,



The central heating analogy isn't perfect but the purpose was to illustrate just how effective is warm water in heating the air above or around it.

Gandalf's point about the effect of 500 years of high solar activity raising the input to the Thermohaline Circulation yet being completely diffused in the journey along the circuit doesn't work because the THC retains its integrity along the entire track without being totally diffused along the way.

So there is a 'pipe' of sorts.

It is inconceivable that 500 year cycling of solar input to the oceans will not impose some temperature fluctuations along the 1000 to 1500 year route of the THC.

Then you said:


"Also relevant is the fact that the only way energy actually gets into and out of the Earth system is by radiation, which CO2 affects"


Well we know that so the sun isn't unlike a central heating boiler which also provides a single source of energy input. The reference to CO2 is not appropriate because the energy from more CO2 is entirely in the infra red which does not penetrate the oceans significantly if at all. Solar shortwave however gets in up to 200 meters so solar variability has a large effect but CO2 does not.




Stephen, I have done a little research on this...


The THC moves at around 250 miles per day....


I'll leave you and others to do the maths but your assertions don't stack up...  The circulation is measured in a few tens of years not 1,000 to 1,500. 


For your timescales the water has to travel a quarter of a million miles at least.


GTW, where'd you get this info? The fastest part of the THC is probably the Gulf stream, which reaches 5.6mph or 134.4 miles per day. The deep water just inches along much more slowly than this.


 


No, I think the main argument against serious coherence in the signal (I do figure at least some of the characterists of upwelling water are linked to what the world was like when it entered the deep water circulation) is not the speed of the conveyor but the fact that it splits:



 


So a climatic signal would emerge at different times at different places, another source of incoherence.


This all goes to show the ephemeral nature of heat retention.imo.


To call it otherwise perpetuates the hoax.

Stephen Wilde
30 October 2010 12:47:07

"So a climatic signal would emerge at different times at different places, another source of incoherence."

Except that a 500 year period of active sun puts more into the descending gyres worldwide and a 500 year period of less active sun puts less into the descending gyres worldwide.

To suggest that that then somehow becomes wholly diffused so as to eliminate any temperature discontinuities when the circuit is completed I find rather bizarre.

Nice graphic, by the way. Looks like a reasonably well designed central heating system to me, with 'pipes'.
Stu N
30 October 2010 14:20:56

Stephen Wilde wrote:



Nice graphic, by the way. Looks like a reasonably well designed central heating system to me, with 'pipes'.


Is it really that simple though? I don't know, it's probably worth reading some scientific papers about it.

Gandalf The White
30 October 2010 14:40:01

Stu N wrote:


 


GTW, where'd you get this info? The fastest part of the THC is probably the Gulf stream, which reaches 5.6mph or 134.4 miles per day. The deep water just inches along much more slowly than this.


 



Hi Stu


It came from a paper I was reading when checking on the speed of the THC.  It said "Typical speed for deep ocean current: 0.03-0.06 km/hour."


You are correct that the surface Gulf Stream moves faster - the paper says 2 metres per second, which is around 5 mph.  I think it is fairly clear that the mechanism that creates the deep ocean current is different, as the starting point is the sinks.


 


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Stu N
30 October 2010 15:47:30

Gandalf The White wrote:


It came from a paper I was reading when checking on the speed of the THC.  It said "Typical speed for deep ocean current: 0.03-0.06 km/hour."



So what's with the 250 miles/day? Were you drunk?

AIMSIR
30 October 2010 15:51:44

Stu N wrote:


Gandalf The White wrote:


It came from a paper I was reading when checking on the speed of the THC.  It said "Typical speed for deep ocean current: 0.03-0.06 km/hour."



So what's with the 250 miles/day? Were you drunk?


He's just in a hurry, Stu.

Stu N
30 October 2010 16:09:37

AIMSIR wrote:


Stu N wrote:


Gandalf The White wrote:


It came from a paper I was reading when checking on the speed of the THC.  It said "Typical speed for deep ocean current: 0.03-0.06 km/hour."



So what's with the 250 miles/day? Were you drunk?


He's just in a hurry, Stu.



LOL! Well by today's standards that's still slow. I'll be in Singapore in less than 24 hours (I'm off on holiday) and that's nearly 7000 miles away

AIMSIR
30 October 2010 16:20:08

Stu N wrote:


AIMSIR wrote:


Stu N wrote:


Gandalf The White wrote:


It came from a paper I was reading when checking on the speed of the THC.  It said "Typical speed for deep ocean current: 0.03-0.06 km/hour."



So what's with the 250 miles/day? Were you drunk?


He's just in a hurry, Stu.



LOL! Well by today's standards that's still slow. I'll be in Singapore in less than 24 hours (I'm off on holiday) and that's nearly 7000 miles away


Wow,Very nice.Enjoy.

Stephen Wilde
30 October 2010 16:24:29

"Is it really that simple though? I don't know, it's probably worth reading some scientific papers about it."

Is nuclear physics as simple as e = mc2 ?

All scientific conundrums are eventually resolved by a simple verbal or mathematical statement.

The expertise of a scientist is measured by how much he knows about less and less.

Sometimes standing back a bit is a good idea.

Gandalf The White
30 October 2010 17:40:32

Stu N wrote:


Gandalf The White wrote:


It came from a paper I was reading when checking on the speed of the THC.  It said "Typical speed for deep ocean current: 0.03-0.06 km/hour."



So what's with the 250 miles/day? Were you drunk?



Oops - trying to type too fast without checking.  I intended to put 250 miles PER ANNUM.


Sorry.


I'm allowed the odd mistake - and I'm still ahead of certain sceptics in terms of erroneous observations....


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


AIMSIR
31 October 2010 12:30:18

Gandalf The White wrote:


Stu N wrote:


Gandalf The White wrote:


It came from a paper I was reading when checking on the speed of the THC.  It said "Typical speed for deep ocean current: 0.03-0.06 km/hour."



So what's with the 250 miles/day? Were you drunk?



Oops - trying to type too fast without checking.  I intended to put 250 miles PER ANNUM.


Sorry.


I'm allowed the odd mistake - and I'm still ahead of certain sceptics in terms of erroneous observations....


Don't worry too much about it Gandalf.I'm sure the IPCC will understand your situation.

Gandalf The White
31 October 2010 14:41:00

AIMSIR wrote:


Don't worry too much about it Gandalf.I'm sure the IPCC will understand your situation.



I'm deeply honoured to be spoken of in such company AIMSIR....


Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Solar Cycles
31 October 2010 14:54:39

Gandalf The White wrote:


AIMSIR wrote:


Don't worry too much about it Gandalf.I'm sure the IPCC will understand your situation.



I'm deeply honoured to be spoken of in such company AIMSIR....


Blimey, your easily pleased then! 

Gandalf The White
31 October 2010 15:03:37

Solar Cycles wrote:


Blimey, you're easily pleased then! 




Not a difficult choice really if the alternative is association with some of the 'alternative science' promoters here...



Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Solar Cycles
31 October 2010 15:18:27

Gandalf The White wrote:


Solar Cycles wrote:


Blimey, you're easily pleased then! 




Not a difficult choice really if the alternative is association with some of the 'alternative science' promoters here...



Better to seek the truth, than to follow a headless chicken! 

Gandalf The White
31 October 2010 15:23:34

Solar Cycles wrote:


Gandalf The White wrote:


Solar Cycles wrote:


Blimey, you're easily pleased then! 




Not a difficult choice really if the alternative is association with some of the 'alternative science' promoters here...



Better to seek the truth, than to follow a headless chicken! 



The problem is, SC, that if you have your eyes closed you don't realise you are following a headless (sceptical) chicken until it's too late....



Anyway, you need to look in the right places for the truth.  Frequent visits to biased blog sites don't count, in my judgement, as seeking the truth - more, reinforcing pre-existing bias.



Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Solar Cycles
31 October 2010 15:43:39

Gandalf The White wrote:


Solar Cycles wrote:


Gandalf The White wrote:


Solar Cycles wrote:


Blimey, you're easily pleased then! 




Not a difficult choice really if the alternative is association with some of the 'alternative science' promoters here...



Better to seek the truth, than to follow a headless chicken! 



The problem is, SC, that if you have your eyes closed you don't realise you are following a headless (sceptical) chicken until it's too late....



Anyway, you need to look in the right places for the truth.  Frequent visits to biased blog sites don't count, in my judgement, as seeking the truth - more, reinforcing pre-existing bias.



Aye, but the trouble with that is, both camps have biased websites. Also the IPCC is no oracle of the truth! It's all about viewing with an open mind, and not letting your prejudices getting the better of you! 

Gandalf The White
31 October 2010 17:57:06

Solar Cycles wrote:


Aye, but the trouble with that is, both camps have biased websites. Also the IPCC is no oracle of the truth! It's all about viewing with an open mind, and not letting your prejudices getting the better of you! 



But you betray your bias in that comment.  There is a world of difference between a substantial report having a few errors in it and sites that set out to publish sceptical comments based on selective data or worse.


If your definition of 'truth' is clouded by your opinion then your opinion is less likely to be altered, is it?


Anyone who uses WUWT and other such sites as a major source of information is betraying their bias and clearly not looking for the truth but to reinforce their existing prejudice.



Location: South Cambridgeshire
130 metres ASL
52.0N 0.1E


Users browsing this topic

    Ads