Last topic was getting quite long.

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.

To call it otherwise perpetuates the hoax.

"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'.

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

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.

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

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."

AIMSIR wrote:

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

Stu N wrote:

He's just in a hurry, Stu.

Gandalf The White wrote:

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

"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.

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....

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

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

Blimey, you're easily pleased then! 

Solar Cycles wrote:

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

Gandalf The White wrote:

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

Solar Cycles wrote:

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.

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.

Enjoy it while it lasts.

Blimey, you're easily pleased then! 

Solar Cycles wrote:

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

Gandalf The White wrote:

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

Solar Cycles wrote:

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.

Gandalf The White 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! 

Solar Cycles wrote:

I dont think its even worth mentioning the IPCC in the same breath as Science, they have become a political body who will probably put up candidates at the next Euro elections.

All joking aside, they have lost all credibilty and should be disbanded.

Sorry Rob, you are merely confirming your known prejudices with that remark.

The IPCC co-ordinates the work of many many experts in their fields and to dismiss or even trivialise their valuable work does them an unjustified discredit.   So, they have made a few mistakes - but in the context of the amount of work and the things they have got right I see absolutely no justification for such a blanket dismissal.

We'll let your political remark pass, I think.  About as ill-judged as that by Harriet Harman yesterday.

In all seriousness Gandalf.
Do you think the IPCC is a wholesome ,correct, organization.?

BTW. I do not ask this question as one being under the influence of certain blog sites.

My question is genuine and unloaded.

"We'll let your political remark pass, I think.  About as ill-judged as that by Harriet Harman yesterday".

Gandalf I care not one whit, whether you let my comment pass or not. The IPCC has lost credibilty and like ALL organisations, all the good work gets forgotten about if their mistakes leads to a lack of credibilty. I find it interesting how some people refuse to see that.