|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 4, 2016 18:56:03 GMT
Argo and RAPID plus the satellites don't yet seem to be supporting the "agenda" message. What is your guess on how long it stays that way? Or have I missed something? Or is the tide turning as the 'rats' straddle the rail trying to decide which way to jump? Or perhaps those with a conscience will show some courage if the 'agenda ship' starts taking on water. Perhaps the better question is: how do we know when and if it changes? If it's subtle, it might be hard to tease out. If it's dramatic, it should stand out like a sore thumb. I've always liked that word ... con-science. Long ago some wordsmith must have had a sense of humor. (an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 4, 2016 22:25:13 GMT
An old saying is those who do not study their history are condemned to relive it.
A century or more of civil service acts from the late 19th century to the present ended the majority of the kind of corruption seen in government in the 19th century. Before these acts civil service jobs were handed out as political favors. No employee expected to remain in the job longer than his patron did. Incompetency, corruption, and favoritism ruled the day.
Teddy Roosevelt is probably best recognized as leading the charge to make civil service a profession with rules and guidelines that prevent them from profiting from their positions. You can't even buy them a soda pop if you are doing business with them. On the other side of the equation its difficult to fire a civil service worker past his probationary period. You have to have just cause such as excessive absence, tardiness, illegal behavior, or well documented work quality failure.
Laws prescribe clear areas of authority for agencies so you can't shop for an opinion. It actually works quite well to the point that even political appointee cabinet members and assistants have fairly limited access to how the work is done. They are important in setting budgets and promoting people to the top ranks of the civil service but those promoted worked to that level and are aware that they need to perform well in their profession to survive.
That has been circumvented in many ways. Universities and NGOs have created partnerships with government where they both do the work, set the budgets, and select the outcomes without any accountability at all. Data collection grants are handed out and the grantees treat the data as proprietary. The University of East Anglia was given government grants (its a UK university working off both UK and US grants) to collect historic temperature records which they refused to share. When subpoenaed for the data the data became "lost". Was there corruption? Sure sounds like it! Why hide the data if you have nothing to hide?
I think obviously the universities have much to offer. But unlike how its been done it must be done with what we learned about corruption in the evolution of the civil service. We have people actually doing the temperature record work, drawing fat salaries and working for other institutions operating off government budgets.
Double and triple dipping was recently exposed for the head of the IPCC in the Shukla affair. It seems to have been dropped like a hot potato as soon as the pols began to think about how widespread these kinds of practices are.
Much has been made of the neutrality of university scientists and they always argue in terms of their university salary not being influenced by the grants. But when you dig a little deeper into foundation and NGO budgets you begin to find a different story. It may well be the biggest corruption scandal of the century but who is going to pursue it? The corruption has grown to ubiquitous levels. Who is going to try to pass a law on university professors? Not a viable solution! The solution is in an complete reformation of the practices of political earmarking and favoritism that the civil service acts sought to eliminate. The corruptions of the past have been resurrected under the cover of supposedly innocent non-profit seeking universities and public benefit corporations. Fixing it won't be easy as the amount of infrastructure dedicated to it is vast. Buildings, equipment, computers. . . .
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 4, 2016 23:46:20 GMT
Any job in academia pretty much expects you to bring in grants. They don't even try to hide it. It's right in the job description. Teaching takes second place to money for the organization. Hate to say that, but it's true in most instances I've seen. If you're not considered a 'team' player ... and that usually includes dogma ... you won't get any help with your funding ... and you won't be invited to join 'the team proposal'.
Even at USGS, applications for government money always had 'key words' thrown in that represented the current hot items. So, no matter what the research direction, climate change would always be mentioned, and great effort would be expended to make it look like an integrated part of the research ... even if it wasn't.
Corruption is a strange beast. It can easily slip into anything you do ... and practically nobody will admit it ... unless they're in a particularly philosophical mood and sloshed to the gills. Any university scientist that claims to be neutral is either a very unique character (and there are a number of them, but not many brave ones) or he's a bald-faced fibber. We need deniers. Knowledge never advances without them. Patrick Henry is on my wall right beside Jefferson.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 5, 2016 0:00:27 GMT
The new mantra in Ag research is organic and sustainable. Throw in climate and your success is almost guaranteed.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 5, 2016 15:22:17 GMT
Any job in academia pretty much expects you to bring in grants. They don't even try to hide it. It's right in the job description. Teaching takes second place to money for the organization. Hate to say that, but it's true in most instances I've seen. If you're not considered a 'team' player ... and that usually includes dogma ... you won't get any help with your funding ... and you won't be invited to join 'the team proposal'. Even at USGS, applications for government money always had 'key words' thrown in that represented the current hot items. So, no matter what the research direction, climate change would always be mentioned, and great effort would be expended to make it look like an integrated part of the research ... even if it wasn't. Corruption is a strange beast. It can easily slip into anything you do ... and practically nobody will admit it ... unless they're in a particularly philosophical mood and sloshed to the gills. Any university scientist that claims to be neutral is either a very unique character (and there are a number of them, but not many brave ones) or he's a bald-faced fibber. We need deniers. Knowledge never advances without them. Patrick Henry is on my wall right beside Jefferson. You are only neutral when you don't have a dog in the fight. Grants do serve to produce a more realistic educational environment. Having students engaging in cutting edge research under the guidance of a highly trained person is an undeniably good situation. However, the problem is the partnerships have been formed, both formally and informally. You can hardly find an acronym at NOAA that isn't some kind of partnership. On the surface they look good but once you start investigating more deeply you find people recommending and approving grants, recommending and approving them for organizations that then turn around and give a grant or something else to the person that got them the money. These "partners" are not under the strict guidelines that civil servants are. You can wine and dine them and grant them even if you are doing business associated with the agency with overall responsibility. The conflict of interest is inherent when these people hold positions in a government agency/quasi government agency partnership, hold professorships, and probably have positions or sources of funds from NGOs and foundations. Then there is the issue of "pal" review. Peer review of studies to be published are not reviewed in the sense of a financial review, much less a financial audit. Individual reviewers have no accountability. In fact most often they remain anonymous ensuring not just no legal accountability but also no reputational accountability. Reviewers review and judge papers not from a scientific standard but from a quasi-political standard as to whether they agree with the result and wish to allow credit for the work. Rejection of papers is relatively easy on the basis of science as science always holds some degree of uncertainty, so politics again enters the equation due to the lack of standards for review. The Shukla affair should have become a big deal. Even though no law was broken it exposed a ugly side to corruption in government and demonstrates quite clearly that these people making decisions of spending government funds and affecting the freedoms of individual are not independent. Perfection is never achievable; but in my years of government consulting I found the civil service to largely be independent. If we could have a system that rose to that level of independence we would be one heckuva a lot better off. Its pretty easy to rationalize against independence. I mean should not the most "respected" scientist determine what work needs to be done and do it too? I see it as a strawman. There are enough experts around to ensure a layer of independence in all this if the political system can honest itself up enough and get the political will to do it.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 5, 2016 18:46:48 GMT
Icefisher ... I'm curious what you meant by that statement ... Enso which is probably primarily a deep ocean effect.I think a big climate regulator is variability of the thermohaline system. The system has a cycle of around 800 to 1,000 years. Its roughly a thousand years from the Roman Optimum to the Medieval Optimum to the Modern Optimum. The variability perhaps as little as 1 degree and maybe as much as 4 degrees. The regulator in the system are probably winds, clouds, and sea ice caps. There are reasons to believe that all three of these things have varied over long periods of time. Caves in China support precipitation changes, Arctic exploration suggests sea ice cap changes, and we are seeing some rather large displacements in semi-permanent pressure cells as of late. All three could have large impacts on the thermohaline system. The two major upwelling zones are the north pacific and around Antarctica. See all that exceptionally cold water around Antarctica the last couple of years? And the exceptionally warm water in the ENSO zone and in the north Pacific blob? Thermohaline stream variability? All the idiots running around claiming one factor and dismissing all other factors individually one at a time probably simply can't get enough brain cells in alignment to imagine three variables changing and aligning in various ways at different times. Living on the west coast I am aware of how winds affect upwelling. So it seems likely that ENSO is primarily wind driven deep upwelling variability. Dr Spencer points out a cloud factor in his most recent post on the matter and also pinpoints upwelling. We spend billions and have dozens of supercomputer climate models all running with one variable trying to figure out variability off that one variable. Talking about not thinking outside of the box! I have no problem conceptualizing this thesis ... Nautonnier's lava lamp analogy. That heat might subduct during warm times and ply the thermohaline circuits of the ocean depths to resurface at intervals in zones of upwelling and release their heat to the atmosphere seems plausible to me. Unfortunately we have so little data for the ocean depths ... and I don't remember anything that attempts to document or quantify such discrete packages. Questions arise such as ... can heat packages retain their cohesiveness over such long transport times ... or, do they degrade over time, mixing with the resident cold waters of the deep oceans. If they retain most of their heat, they might resurface as a long, rewarming package train. If they degrade, then there would need to be some re-concentration mechanism??? We keep hearing the warmists state that the heat is hiding in the oceans ... but??? Of course, they are using it a an excuse. We know from Argo that heat subducts. We can see it in the cross sections of the North Atlantic. One section and two charts below show heat sinking (as visualized in salinity) in the eastern North Atlantic along 45 N latitude. The charts show the temperature and associated salinity rises in the 700-1250 m and 1250-2000 m zones. The 700-1250 zone shows salinity rises from 2010-13 as warm, more saline water sinks from the upper layers and is then displaced by cooler, less saline water in 2014-15, as colder water increasingly encroaches eastward and southward. The deeper 1250-2000m zone shows warming from 2009 plateauing out from 2012. The salinity deviation graphs are mirror images of the temperature graphs. The overall temperature increase in the deepest zone is about 0.15 degree C. This is a fraction of the heat loss that is occurring in the North Atlantic, but statistically, it would seem to be significant. This figure is also averaged over the entire 50 degree longitude range of the zone, whereas this transfer is mostly occurring in the eastern portion. If such thermal packets are surfacing, perhaps more Argo exploration may uncover them.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 5, 2016 19:02:16 GMT
Something I'm just bumping round my head and putting out there....is something being missed by the resolution of argo or other monitoring system?
For example, something I noticed in Croatia which has deep shelving coast, and hurricane strength winds occasionally coming off the mountain. Early in the year, the med will warm up and be felt as a layer at the surface. The wind will come. .stir up the sea and the overall effect is swimming is much less pleasant. ..much colder. However within the sea you can feel pockets of warmth, and once the sea stills again....After 2 days you can feel the warm surface layer returning, even increasing in thickness.
Missouriboy, thinking about when you asked how heat can jump the cold patch in the Atlantic. ..is it possible that warmth can contained within a largely cold area, but resolutions of the data don't perceive this? Could something like the Lab current, interfering with the NAD, stir the cold and warmth down to a more macro level then is registered. ..With heat only separating back out once the interference is reduced?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 5, 2016 21:06:18 GMT
Something I'm just bumping round my head and putting out there....is something being missed by the resolution of argo or other monitoring system? For example, something I noticed in Croatia which has deep shelving coast, and hurricane strength winds occasionally coming off the mountain. Early in the year, the med will warm up and be felt as a layer at the surface. The wind will come. .stir up the sea and the overall effect is swimming is much less pleasant. ..much colder. However within the sea you can feel pockets of warmth, and once the sea stills again....After 2 days you can feel the warm surface layer returning, even increasing in thickness. Missouriboy, thinking about when you asked how heat can jump the cold patch in the Atlantic. ..is it possible that warmth can contained within a largely cold area, but resolutions of the data don't perceive this? Could something like the Lab current, interfering with the NAD, stir the cold and warmth down to a more macro level then is registered. ..With heat only separating back out once the interference is reduced? I remember doing an exercise where we were storing global wind data, but back in those days there was very little capacity so we were playing with the granularity of the records. One of the researchers showed that a small hurricane like Hurricane Andrew that hit just outside Miami was smaller than the granularity some were suggesting and the entire hurricane would not show in our wind record. It's the same with any stats where the temporal or geographical granularity is high surprising amounts of information can be lost (or concealed) It is why the ice cores with really coarse temporal granularity cannot be patched onto modern observation metrics
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 6, 2016 1:56:23 GMT
Something I'm just bumping round my head and putting out there....is something being missed by the resolution of argo or other monitoring system? For example, something I noticed in Croatia which has deep shelving coast, and hurricane strength winds occasionally coming off the mountain. Early in the year, the med will warm up and be felt as a layer at the surface. The wind will come. .stir up the sea and the overall effect is swimming is much less pleasant. ..much colder. However within the sea you can feel pockets of warmth, and once the sea stills again....After 2 days you can feel the warm surface layer returning, even increasing in thickness. Missouriboy, thinking about when you asked how heat can jump the cold patch in the Atlantic. ..is it possible that warmth can contained within a largely cold area, but resolutions of the data don't perceive this? Could something like the Lab current, interfering with the NAD, stir the cold and warmth down to a more macro level then is registered. ..With heat only separating back out once the interference is reduced? Nautonnier is absolutely correct. If what you're looking for is of finer, or even at the resolution of your data, then good luck. To resolve an item you need several measurements where you can delineate changes from the background. Individual whirlpools for example within the overall current system are probably not going to be resolved. However, what we are looking at here, in terms of the overall structure is several hundred miles wide. I attached a graph showing the 3-degree latitude slice along 38-40 N. The channel where the Lab current cuts across / through the Gulf Stream is plainly visible and definitive in 3 separate years. This one just happens to be at 100-700 m depth for 2013-15. Yes ... there could well be smaller cohesive temperature structures within the overall stream that we cannot resolve ... and I think I would guess that there would be ... more complex than we can even imagine. But the macro-structure stands out like a sore thumb.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 6, 2016 2:14:38 GMT
I have no problem conceptualizing this thesis ... Nautonnier's lava lamp analogy. That heat might subduct during warm times and ply the thermohaline circuits of the ocean depths to resurface at intervals in zones of upwelling and release their heat to the atmosphere seems plausible to me. Unfortunately we have so little data for the ocean depths ... and I don't remember anything that attempts to document or quantify such discrete packages. Questions arise such as ... can heat packages retain their cohesiveness over such long transport times ... or, do they degrade over time, mixing with the resident cold waters of the deep oceans. If they retain most of their heat, they might resurface as a long, rewarming package train. If they degrade, then there would need to be some re-concentration mechanism??? We keep hearing the warmists state that the heat is hiding in the oceans ... but??? Of course, they are using it a an excuse. We know from Argo that heat subducts. We can see it in the cross sections of the North Atlantic. One section and two charts below show heat sinking (as visualized in salinity) in the eastern North Atlantic along 45 N latitude. The charts show the temperature and associated salinity rises in the 700-1250 m and 1250-2000 m zones. The 700-1250 zone shows salinity rises from 2010-13 as warm, more saline water sinks from the upper layers and is then displaced by cooler, less saline water in 2014-15, as colder water increasingly encroaches eastward and southward. The deeper 1250-2000m zone shows warming from 2009 plateauing out from 2012. The salinity deviation graphs are mirror images of the temperature graphs. The overall temperature increase in the deepest zone is about 0.15 degree C. This is a fraction of the heat loss that is occurring in the North Atlantic, but statistically, it would seem to be significant. This figure is also averaged over the entire 50 degree longitude range of the zone, whereas this transfer is mostly occurring in the eastern portion. If such thermal packets are surfacing, perhaps more Argo exploration may uncover them. View AttachmentView AttachmentView AttachmentAccording to one of the papers I was reading this week there is very little warm water subduction below the halocline because of the lack of any significant differences in salinity and thus insignificant differences in density. Practiaally no data exists for the ocean bottoms. Argo does not even get close so pretty much any theory that doesn't violate physical laws sits on the table as a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 7, 2016 19:05:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 7, 2016 21:22:37 GMT
Also still exceptionally cold......cant be ice sheet melt!!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jan 8, 2016 16:48:05 GMT
Also still exceptionally cold......cant be ice sheet melt!! There is a range of temperature of 8-10C across the Labrador Current from SW hot (5.2C) to cold Lab (-5.3C) to NE hot (3.2C) with the NE hot spot being about 2 C cooler than the SW hot spot ... suggesting that there is some mixing occurring??? Each little whirlpool has a different temperature ranging from -8 C to +8C and in this image these are miles across. If one could mechanically grab or retrieve a digital file of temperatures and current speeds for a select area of this intersection over time at the resolution of the image and current source data, you might really tease out the mechanics of what is actually happening in this area over time. Your comments on your Adriatic experience are, I think, spot on. The mechanics of this may well be that at the micro level, either at the surface or in the upper depths below the surface you may well be getting small packets of warmer and cooler water moving across, around or under the turbulent interface that emerge on the other side as, for practical purposes, colder waters that are a mixture of Gulf Stream and recycled Labrador Current moving onto the northeastern circuit of the NAD. The result of such a mixture would be colder than normal water moving northeast and, for practical purposes, a recycling of the Lab back into the sub-polar gyre, which partially shuts off (or dilutes the effects of) the Gulf Stream heat generator? Have you ever had contact with an Earth nullschool source that could comment on (or provide) access to data? Someone could easily get a dissertation out of this topic!!!! And the data ... Oh my! Enough to set a data grinder's heart aflutter!!! Any wannabe Ph.D candidates out there? Even masters thesis! Acidohm ... you should write a paper!! Note also the counter current moving back into New England and Labrador Gulf waters ... signs of back flow from a current obstruction?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 8, 2016 18:30:12 GMT
i have had communication with im guessing Cameron Beccario via the facebook page, purely to check i was ok putting their images on Youtube and sharing. Friendly responses always. The source of the data for all the information is published on the 'about' page of the main site....http://earth.nullschool.net/about.html which includes the ssta. Not sure what time of the year it was but think about may?? the counter current was extremely evident in the ssta with cold track right back down the stream, its at about 23 secs in this animation Some of our initial conversations Missouriboy were referring to the argo data, but at the time i was looking at the actual bouy location data as shown on a ARGO layer in google earth. Every bouys historic position as it resurfaces (i think) and pings back to 'base' is logged and displayed here. I had an idea of measuring the gulf stream flow this way but quickly realised as many of the bouys spend as much time heading south west as they do north east, some really full on data analyisis would be required!! Some bouys spend YEARS heading back against the flow!! The animation relates quite closely to where i remember the 'backward' flow being.... If a paper was to be written, it would have to be by all solar24 contributers!!
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 8, 2016 22:32:01 GMT
fido.nrk.no/4cf750c3e0b034153d6ea12a898156b4a030f739896889be4a11b4526a97a663/Nature-climate-change.pdfif we can take this paper as an example of a cause of North Atlantic ocean cooling, ie, Greenland meltwater runoff.....is it therefore falsified by existing cooling during a period where the Greenland Icecap would be frozen?? nsidc.org/greenland-today/Not currently melting.... However, as previously pointed out by Missouriboy.....strong, cold labrador current... Another source of freshwater to the Lab current is Hudson Bay... The total area of the Hudson Bay drainage is about 3.8 million km2 and the mean discharge of all the rivers flowing into it is 30 900 m3/s. Something like 1/3 of all freshwater discharged into the arctic circle, comes from Hudson bay. www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/hudson-bay/So, (correct me as soon as i go wrong....) that would be 974,462,400 km3 of water per year?? This to be honest seems alot? Compared to 239 cubic kilometers (57 cu mi) per year melt water from greenland... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheetMaybe, maybe not........now data on what has been happening upstream of the hudson bay is hard to find....has there been increased preciptation for example?? However i seem to remember that a new icebreaker has been called for to keep shipping lanes open in the Hudson bay?? Has it got colder there??
|
|