Don't know if anyone caught it, but one of the discovery channels had a rather excellent series on a few months back called 'Ways to save the planet!' where various scientist[sic] put forward their ideas to curtail Climate Change inc. My personal fav was Jason Boxs [ipcc reviewer no less] plan to throw a big tarpoulin over Greenland.
Upon arrival in Greenland after a few weeks sourcing all the materials, it dawned on them that Greenland is rather large and quite hard to move stuff around in *wonders what ph.d stands for in Jasons case*
Classic Boxy-keep 'em coming

Son of Mulder.

If only you could appreciate the rotational effect of Earth's influence on its atmosphere this would be so much easier!

I guess that this is where you belong (the asylum).

Best regards, suricat.

Suricat

quote:

If only you could appreciate the rotational effect of Earth's influence on its atmosphere this would be so much easier!

I guess that this is where you belong (the asylum).

Appreciate at what level. I studied mathematical fluid mechanics so am familiar with the fluid mechanical equations used as a basis of the GCMs. Coriolis force, conservation of angular momentum etc etc. So what point are you trying to make?

Son of Mulder.

Oops! Typo! Should have read "where this post belongs", not "you". Sorry (posting late again).

quote:

Appreciate at what level. I studied mathematical fluid mechanics so am familiar with the fluid mechanical equations used as a basis of the GCMs. Coriolis force, conservation of angular momentum etc etc. So what point are you trying to make?

I know, but to me the coriolis force is only an effect of vectored mass momentum within an unbounded rotating plane, not a force, and conservation of angular momentum can not exist without constraint to the mass (it becomes conservation of momentum with a straight line velocity). It's the physics that turbines employ.

Yes, it's the same old, same old! The atmosphere is "force ventilated" at the equator and around the poles. The equatorial effect is an accelerative force against gravity of roughly 8cm/sec^2 and creates the Hadley Cells, but the effect around the poles generates the Polar Cells with the Ferrel Cells "freewheeling" between the Hadley and Polar Cells.

Because of their greater (Earth) diameter with identical rotation, the Hadley Cells overrun the Ferrel and Polar Cells giving us the Brewer-Dobson Circulation that travels at high altitude, atop the climate cells, from the equator to each of the poles. Much of the rotational velocity gained by the Brewer-Dobson Circulation from its equatorial origin is lost by mass mixing as it passes above the Ferrel and Polar Cells, however, at the upper reaches between climate cells little mixing occurs. This gives rise to corridors of fast moving high altitude wind known as a "Jet Stream".

Here's the "science bit":
I know wiki is bias on some subjects, but there's a really good illustration here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jetcrosssection.jpg
Which is from this page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
For those not conversant with the Jet Stream phenomenon, this is a good place to learn some basics;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vanished/jetstream.html

SoM, I've looked through a GCM used by NASA and not found any reference to atmospheric equatorial meridional turnover forced by energy imparted from Earth's rotation (other than the "erroneous" surface coriolis force). Thus, I consider the model I inspected is not representational of Earth's climate systems. Do you know of a GCM that includes this?

It's a tedious task looking through the processes of GCMs. I know!

Best regards, suricat.

Climate change could kill your pet, warns the RSPCA

Ugh!

Money makin' ops too!!

mufcdiver & Son of Mulder.

These manifestations are a result of policy and not science. Surely this type of entreprenurial manifestation can only be the resultant of current policy directives?

Best regards, suricat.

Sorry suricat, the dividing lines seem a little blurred sometimes

This is quite a spacious bandwagon, don't you think?


FFS

mufcdiver.

quote:

This is quite a spacious bandwagon, don't you think?

Not so much "spacious" as specious muf.

This is an argument of AGW between carnivores and herbivores. If carnivores were lost to the food chain, there would be less "carnivorous" animals to share the Earth with Homo Sapiens!

Is this fair to the Polar Bears, or the Mice?

Best regards, suricat.

Muf

quote:

This is quite a spacious bandwagon, don't you think?

I've done my bit and not played any of his music since the Beatles....a massive reduction in my carbon footprint.

LOL

I think he's angling to shifty more Linda Mc. food products myself

Mufc

quote:

I think he's angling to shifty more Linda Mc. food products myself

Libellous or what? He'd never angle.

He's got previous form for angling Your Honour

Exhibit A
"Many years ago I was fishing"!!!!

Rest my case M'lord

The biscuit has been taken!!
(click on the smilie)

Mufc

quote:

The biscuit has been taken!!

Nice one. Have you seen the latest in the Times.


Why didn't the headline say 'Fewer sheep dying because of Global warming.'?

And what about Smouldering joss sticks release carcinogenic substances in the air and contribute to global warming, a researcher warned yesterday.

The carcinogen part may be true but "contribute to global warming"?????

quote:

Dr Panuwat Panket, chief of the Non-Communicable Diseases Bureau, urged people to use shorter joss sticks or electric ones, or put the stick outdoors and stub it out after praying.

Maybe they could buy some kind of 'carbon credit' to offset their emissions!
Still, there's the whole 'killing folk with Cancer' thing to get over!!
Oh well... back to the drawing board

[reply from 'Empirical....']

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/bl...-official/#more-5820

re : comments
Folk seem to be so dogmatic in their views that it is hard to imagine any forward movement towards any kind of workable resolution [seems we're stuck between soooo many dogma's that it's hard to see the way forward!?!]
Presently I'm favouring a bottom-up resolution, whereby we start at with the broadest set of environmental problems[forget money, just do whats right!!] that we all agree on, solve them and move up!! This way, I think it would be easier to spot anyone with 'vested interests' and throw them out to the back of the queue!!(think cooking a lobster ) Also I think we'll miss out on the more extreme economical Armageddon the the more extreme 'warmists' are gonna put us through on the back of some extremely tenuous models
One thing is for sure, we have to move beyond this shite!! (cos which ever way you look at it, we have a problem that needs solving on this planet and it is human caused!)

mufcdiver.

quote:

re : comments
Folk seem to be so dogmatic in their views that it is hard to imagine any forward movement towards any kind of workable resolution

That's true, but although I don't think that this is the correct thread for this discussion the subject of "Asylum" does seem appropriate. Let's do this science policy here.

I think this is down to differing disciplines not using any language translation tools. Even the math formulae tend to differ between disciplines (that's one reason I usually don't post any math).

quote:

Presently I'm favouring a bottom-up resolution, whereby we start at with the broadest set of environmental problems[forget money, just do whats right!!] that we all agree on, solve them and move up!! This way, I think it would be easier to spot anyone with 'vested interests' and throw them out to the back of the queue

First show me the bottom. We got lead out of petrol in the UK only to increase its benzene content to more dangerous levels when alcohol has the same effect, but returns even less MPG. Remember "Amoco", the fresh as a daisy petrol (that you had to fill up with more often)? The "vested interest" there was the public that didn't want to pay more to travel the same distance.

quote:

Also I think we'll miss out on the more extreme economical Armageddon the the more extreme 'warmists' are gonna put us through on the back of some extremely tenuous models

You know how I feel about GCMs!

quote:

One thing is for sure, we have to move beyond this shite!! (cos which ever way you look at it, we have a problem that needs solving on this planet and it is human caused!)

Which problem would that be? Over population? I think we need to crack some of the smaller ones first while keeping it in mind.



TSI (total solar insolation) is mostly understood as the thermal solar insolation at Earth's surface. Another understanding for TSI is the star's (our sun's) variability, or magnitude (but again, magnitude is fixed to the visible wavelengths only).

"Sol" has many variations that are outside of these descriptions and the satellite "sensing" equipment can't observe these variations. The satellite observations are still just "temperature of a black plate observation" (if I read this correctly) as can be shown here;
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpu...3/4/V113.N04.A01.pdf
This is from the ACRIM site, and the "Common Features" section at 2.1 shows this to be only a temperature analysis of a black plate (why were these satellites launched with such a limited criterion). This is so frustrating for engineers!

How can engineers (such as myself) obtain the "full data" needed to make an accurate analysis of this "scenario" without only continuously quoting the mantra of theory and it's data requirement for resolution?

Best regards, suricat.

Interesting banner in my local OXFAM shop window, it reads; "CLIMATE CHANGE KILLS!!"]
Now I assume that they mean AGW induced 'climate change' and that they don't mean 'people whom have met they're end whilst investigating climate change'; So, how many confirmed AGW 'Kills' have our green house gas emissions claimed?

Just a thought