The Curry challenge: climate theory in 750 words

Posted: November 9, 2010 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

On her blog Climate Etc, Judith Curry has said she is considering putting up a post where skeptics will get 750 words each “to give it their best shot”.

Well, I am going to host a thread (probably put it up around Thanksgiving, entitled “Skeptics: give it your best shot” and let people post what [they] have (750 words or less, with links) so we can all take a look and talk about it. Fish or cut bait time :)

This doesn’t give us long, so I’ve decided to get started early with my submission. Hopefully, the contributors here will be able to provide some helpful criticism and help me hone and sharpen this further. I’m currently 243 words over the limit, so suggestions on what I could chop out without losing meaning would be great.

Global surface temperature variation – an effect of solar system dynamics.

Climate in a nutshell:

The Sun and the oceans are the big dogs on the climate block. The albedo modulated insolation at the surface warms the oceans. The oceans sequester this solar energy in ways modulated by the variation of insolation at the surface and the motion of other solar system bodies, especially the moon and Sun. The oceans warm the atmosphere. The atmosphere and its weather systems affect but do not fully control the rate at which the oceans emit energy. The atmosphere loses energy to space at a rate affected by its cloud cover conditions, it’s water vapour content, the latitudinal location of the jet streams, the current size of the ionosphere, the current height of the tropopause across all latitudes, the current temperature gradient between troposphere and stratosphere, the current ozone levels, its current gaseous composition, its current airbourne particle content and sundry smaller factors which will never be disentangled by people convinced the whole show is driven by a trace gas occupying 0.039% of the atmosphere.

Observations:

1) The oceans contain many orders of magnitude more energy than the atmosphere, are insulated from space by it, and emit energy into it via the latent heat of evaporation, radiation, convection and conduction . Changes in sea surface temperature (SST) precede related changes in lower tropospheric temperature (LT) by 3-6 months. Conversely, the oceans are opaque to the radiation emitted by the atmosphere and mechanisms for transferring energy via back radiation, convection or conduction down into its bulk from the atmosphere are extremely limited. In summary, the oceans drive the atmospheric temperature.

2) Due to various internal bounds on energy diffusion and various radiative and non radiative atmospheric feedbacks, the ocean’s energy emission rate is limited. When surface insolation penetrating into the ocean several tens of metres increases above the ocean equilibrium value, a large proportion of the excess energy is sequestered at deeper oceanic levels, increasing ocean heat content (OHC) and hence SST. This leads to a higher frequency of El Nino events over cold upwelling La Nina events. These two phenomena are also affected by changes in Earth’s length of day (LOD) which is in turn affected by the motion of solar system bodies, and by the phase of the 11 year solar cycle. El Nino is more likely to occur near solar minimum when the oceans have an opportunity to emit sequestered energy. La Nina often occurs around solar maximum. This flattens the global temperature response to solar input and leads to an underestimation of the solar effect.

3) The observation and measurement of total solar irradiance (TSI) is a difficult task fraught with instrumental difficulties and interpretational problems. Infighting between various groups, especially between the ACRIM and PMOD teams leaves us with considerable doubt concerning the instrumental record, which is in any case comparatively short. Results seem to reflect the attitudes of the proponents, a flat curve with minimal variation for the PMOD team, and a rising curve with greater variation for the ACRIM team. The whole range covering the two camps is only a few watts per square meter out of a total TSI of around 1365W/m^2 but when the amplification of the solar signal at the surface observed by Nir Shaviv (Using the oceans as a calorimeter JGR 2006) is taken into account, it makes the difference (In a purely radiative consideration of TSI combined with the Stefan-Boltzman equation) between solar variation being responsible for between 10 and over 40% of observed warming. Remembering the level of uncertainty over the surface temperature record, the adjustments made to the data and the current controversy surrounding the effects of urban heat island (UHI) influence on the record (Anthony Watts 2011 forthcoming paper) this figure could be even higher.

4) As well as the direct linear effect of variation in TSI on temperature, there are other ways in which solar variability affects climate. Not all Joules are the same, and although TSI doesn’t vary much, the various wavelengths within it do. For example Ultra Violet radiation has changed much more than total TSI has. U.V. affects ozone production, and ozone is involved in many atmospheric interactions. Solar variation is also linked to changes in specific humidity at the height of the tropopause: https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/shumidity-ssn96.png and the effect this has on precipitation, zonal winds (Makarieva 2010), oceanic evaporation rates and hence surface temperature is a subject of ongoing investigation.

5) Solar variation appears to be linked to the motion of the other solar system bodies, suggesting a feedback mechanism exists between the planetary orbits and solar activity. An interesting correlation has been discovered by Roy Martin and myself between the alignment of planets along the solar windspeed modulated curve of the interplanetary magnetic field and the timing of changing activity levels displayed in the solar cycles:
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/rotation-solar-windspeed-adjusted.png
The amplitudes of solar cycles are also affected by the Sun’s motion about the solar system centre of mass (SSB) which affects its rate of change of angular momentum by up to 25%. This mechanism is under ongoing investigation.
I have discovered another interesting correlation between detrended time series of global surface temperature, changes in LOD, and the motion of the Sun relative to the centre of mass of the solar system: https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ssb-z-lod-temp.jpg

Hypothesis:

The sea surface temperature record can be reconstructed using as variables a proxy for the ocean heat content (integrated sunspot number departing from the ocean equilibrium value) and a proxy for the variation between the positive and negative phases of the oceanic oscillations (LOD). These proxies may be further abstracted to the motion of the planets and the solar motion relative to the SSB. Since future planetary motion is accurately calculable, this offers the possibility of forecasting an accurate baseline against which anomalies can be used to refine the model, and to help isolate and determine the magnitude of the effect of climatic variables.

Result:

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/my-simple-solar-planetary-energy-model/

Conclusion:

There are more things in Heaven and Earth Pachaurio, than are deampt of in your philosophy.

Comments
  1. Zeke the Sneak says:

    This is a brilliant primer. Great that you are taking the offer.

    I think the “Climate in a Nutshell” will have alarmists sitting bolt upright and paying attention to some of the real variables and inputs in the earth’s weather systems, and what a tiny, bit player CO2 really is.

    I don’t see where any cuts can be made, but definately not in the sections about TSI.

  2. Tenuc says:

    Good work Roger. Perhaps rather than cutting bits out you could add a few tables, lists and diagrams – if these are allowed?

  3. The following post I wrote for another blog, asks for such a real answer like our “Magister Ludi” gives us, with his “simple solar-planetary energy model”
    “The Devil is in the details”. Then, as long as we look at the details we will see, (As Briffa) a single tree and not the forest as a whole. That is called by ophthalmologists “nearsightedness” .
    We are used, overused and tired, of hearing : “….it was caused by a low pressure front”. Our questioning minds however, do not obey courtesy laws, and ask, following Socrates “maieutics”(derived from the Greek “μαιευτικός”, pertaining to midwifery.)…”.but what did it cause that low pressure?”, and so, on and on.
    What we need NOW is real, actual causations, and not “tranquilizing pills” or “Brave New World” ‘ s “Soma”.
    There are already people who speak about causations, but these theories/approaches are not well received as “disgusting” or rather “offensive” to established dogmas or “settled science”.
    We prefer to be heretical, doubtful, followers of doubt as a method, only driven by our inner gut’s feelings and seeking general laws beaconing from the lighthouse of truth.

  4. I wonder if Judith Curry’s blog Climate Etc, would have accepted musical words in pentagrams as Climate Theory’s presentation. 🙂

  5. j ferguson says:

    Maybe 750 words isn’t sufficient. How about 1,000? If she hasn”t made the formal proposal yet, why not suggest that this isn’t a 750 word event?

    After all, telling Mikey to keep his stick to himself is one thing. This requires specificity, subtlety, and finesse, just not possible in 750 given the subject.

  6. tallbloke says:

    Zeke, thanks for the kind words, but i need criticism too!
    Tenuc, links to diagrams and tables are allowed.
    Adolfo, always keep asking why. The nearsightedness in the forest is often accompanied by a disease paleodendroclimatologists frequently suffer from called Alderheimers. 😉
    J Ferguson, good point, and welcome. I’d certainly like a bit more room to pontificate during the conclusion.

    [Update] I’ve done a bit of editing and rephrasing. Current word count is 993. Prizes will be given for the best (subtle) seven word insult to the IPCC. 🙂

  7. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke.

    It is good but fails to intrigate the ocean salt content and it’s changes.
    Next, put your hypothisis back a billion years when there was no evaporation. Does the permeters still hold up to the increased planetary speed and added centrifugal force?

    Joe

  8. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,
    Your hypothesis also means that the planet does not rotate. No night from day energy releases or solar energy deflecting off a rotating planet.

  9. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,
    Sorry, but you wanted negative feedback.

    You also forgot the tilting of the planet and the different solar energy going through the atmosphere from this tilting and rotating action. Long energy reaching the poles through the atmosphere and short energy at the equator.
    This round planetary shape also does not allow water vapour to cross the equator.

    750 words is impossible for all the different interactions happening.

  10. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Where’s the atmospheric pressure?

    Now I getting to feel like a s___.

  11. johnnythelowery says:

    Give what our best shot? C02 never was a driver and so to justify our skepticism ellucidated in a 750 ‘best shot’ essay has the horse before the cart. The weather
    is extant and first causation. What needs to find a ‘best shot’ and doesn’t have one yet,
    is AGW CO2 hypothesis. THey are the ones who are skeptical of the natural drivers of climate. Is she then proposing a ‘best shot’ as to the climate driver culprits?

  12. tallbloke says:

    Joe, no problem, thanks for your thoughts. As you say, 750 words is impossible, my attempt is already up toi 1000 and misses much out. When I write the long version I’ll be sure to fully cover points about the longer term geological timescale changes and orbital parameter cycles.

  13. johnnythelowery says:

    In the absence of the failed AGW CO2 hypothsis. If she doesn’t spell it out, I don’t recommend we get involved with her project at all.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Johnny, I’m not sure Judith Curry knows what she wants form this yet either. But she is making an attempt to open up the science to the public, and I give her props for that. So if she does put up a thread for a ‘come ye all’ opportunity, I’m happy to pitch in and see what happens.

    No doubt there will be sourpuss AGW advocates who will pour scorn on, but who cares about their opinion anyway?

  15. johnnythelowery says:

    ….as the old Chineses proverb says, sagely recounted down through the ages………’you know when your girlfriend is getting fat is when she fits in your wife’s clothes!!!’

    No. No idea how that fits in with this!!

  16. Tufty says:

    It sounds highly condescending to me – and wasn’t that one of the problems in the first place? I wouldn’t go near it.

  17. tallbloke says:

    Johnny, have you been following her blog?

  18. tallbloke says:

    Or that other old Chinese proverb which says:

    “Fishing for a real good time, starts with casting in your line.”

    😉

  19. tallbloke says:

    Hi Tufty and welcome.
    Have a look at Judith’s blog. She has been giving some of her colleagues a hard time.

    Recent post titles:
    * The Scientific Method
    * Why engage with skeptics?
    * No ideologues: Part III
    * No dogma(tism): Part II
    * Ending the war with skeptics
    * No dogma
    * Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop: Part II
    * Reversing the direction of the positive feedback loop
    * The balancing heretic
    * Decision making under climate uncertainty: Part I
    * Extended peer community
    * Uncertainty and the IPCC AR5
    * Disagreement
    * Heresy and the creation of monsters
    * Overconfidence in IPCC’s detection and attribution: Part III

  20. Alexander K says:

    Tallbloke; wonderful exposition, but it took me a bit of time to get my head around it (I am an Arts person, not a scientist) and I have only one idea towards reducing the word count – use explanatory graphics, where possible, instead of words. I suspect though, it may be wise to prevail upon Judith Curry to allow 1000 or 1500 words, which is not all that long in the grand scheme of things. Must of us who have taught any subject at undergrad level are/were very used to reading up to 3000 word essays, painful though some them may have been.

  21. Tufty says:

    I agree that Judith Curry has been giving her colleagues a hard time and she deserves much credit for it. However, we are all influenced by our environment and Dr Curry’s is a corrupting environment. I think her offer is a step backwards – it isn’t dialogue.

    For me, Dr Curry’s offer is too similar to a teacher/pupil offer – write an essay and I’ll mark it – give you a score out of ten. Maybe this is too cynical, but we should have due regard to Dr Curry’s professional environment as well as Dr Curry herself, admirable though her courage may be. I am an aged professional scientist and Dr Curry’s stance on the scientific method seems no more than adequate to me. Against the background of a corrupted profession she stands out, but so do many, many sceptics.

    Friend, do not try to borrow combs from shaven monks. Yet another Chinese proverb.

  22. tallbloke says:

    Hi Alexander and welcome.
    I emailed Dr Curry last night and I think she will amend the terms to allow 1000 words. I wish I could find room to fit in my falsification of the AGW hypothesis. Maybe I’ll do two entries, one falsifying the AGW theory, and the second expounding my new climate theory. 🙂

  23. tallbloke says:

    Tufty,
    Dr Curry is the hostess, but she is not the sole arbiter of contributions. The entire ‘extended peer community she has welcomed there has that job.

  24. Joe Lalonde says:
    November 10, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Tallbloke,
    Your hypothesis also means that the planet does not rotate.

    “Magister Ludi” Tallbloke DID INCLUDE IT: What is it LOD (length of the day) then?
    Are you becoming a Sagitarian, like me, sending his arrows TOO SOON?

  25. Zeke the Sneak says:

    One thousand words? You need to remember these are warmists you are writing for.

  26. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Isn’t there a Chinese proverb on that? “There is strength in few words. Warmist understands you.”

  27. tallbloke says:

    Hows this for an attempt at Hikou?

    Southern ledge rock pool
    refreshed by risen tide
    warms in summer sun

  28. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Tallbloke; the first paragraph says it all. The last sentence, of which, is the point. If they can not get their heads around that, the rest is a waste of time.
    Nice essay in total, on the general thought, but you would need a book to set out all the facts. Kind of hard to present the total of the science in 750 words, as it should be viewed, to people that already have a much shorter version that they are married to. Even if their view doesn’t fit the facts, they are comfortable with it..

  29. E O'Connor says:

    Adolfo

    Is climate then a large scale symphonic cycle and not the Syncopated Concerto for CO2, against orchestra, as composed by the IPCC?

    Tallbloke

    The last sentence in the first paragraph is Wagnerian in length. Could you, at least for this measure, introduce a rhythmic change of Staccato dot points?

  30. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Do you believe there is evidence that we are currently into the “Big Chill” (Ice Age)?

    I think I’ll do the challenge but show how we currently been in a pre-Ice Age for the last 40 years.
    Have to admit, the speed of the cooldown so far is faster than anything we have seen in oceans and atmosphere.

    Joe

  31. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,

    Using LOD is a “cop out” to laziness when there is so much going on in that length of day.

  32. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,

    Something to fire up your brain synapsises

    How much energy does a grain of sand hold?

  33. tallbloke says:

    E O’Connor says:
    November 11, 2010 at 2:24 am
    The last sentence in the first paragraph is Wagnerian in length. Could you, at least for this measure, introduce a rhythmic change of Staccato dot points?

    If you can reduce the number of inter-related processes affecting the rate of atmospheric energy loss, I can shorten the sentence. 😉

    I confess I dropped the gratuitous insult at the end in the version I sent Judith Curry.

  34. tallbloke says:

    Joe Lalonde says:
    November 11, 2010 at 3:35 am

    Tallbloke,

    Do you believe there is evidence that we are currently into the “Big Chill” (Ice Age)?

    No. But depending on how long the sun goes sleepy-byes for we might be in for a ‘mini ice age’ over the next few decades. But given how warm it’s been, that shouldn’t be too desperate.

  35. Zeke the Sneak says:

    tallbloke says:
    November 9, 2010 at 10:34 pm
    I need criticism too.

    I thought you would never ask. Thanks but I would need a whole tab of my own on the toolbar for that task. No just kidding (-:

    Actually, I already did leave my criticism. I said,

    “I think the “Climate in a Nutshell” will have alarmists sitting bolt upright and paying attention to some of the real variables and inputs in the earth’s weather systems, and what a tiny, bit player CO2 really is.”

    That was it, really. The earth is plainly receiving electrical input from its space environment, some of the evidence of which is the gamma ray bursts (relativistic electrons) which are occuring at least 50 times a day above the cloud tops, the shaking of the geomagnetic field, the rippling of the (plasmatic) ionosphere, the resulting currents in the ground. The ionized belt around the earth is very active too.

    And having a look around the solar system there are raging “24 hour” lightning storms, hundrends of mile an hour winds, dust devils the size of Mt Everest, massive auroras, x-rays in the Martian atmosphere, etc etc.

    Heat is good. But it isn’t the only game in town.

    And also you do not have a mechanism for the planets’ modulation of solar activity, do you? I think you have shown that they do, and I wish I knew more about it. To the search!

  36. Zeke the Sneak says:
    November 11, 2010 at 5:50 pm
    We can almost smell the Ozone surrounding you. You are ionized! 🙂

  37. tallbloke says:

    Zeke the sneak says:
    And also you do not have a mechanism for the planets’ modulation of solar activity, do you?

    The energy doesn’t need to come from the planets. The fact that they line up and provide a more conducive path for energy to leave the sun’s surface is sufficient to cause the change in activity on the solar surface.

    The mechanism is geometrical position the planets move into in the normal course of their orbits. In this sense though, we can consider the energy of the planets. They have velocity, and their relative location affects solar activity, and the solar wind speed, which in turn affects the outward pressure which determines the planetary orbital distances.

    I think this is why there are so many numerical ‘coincidences’ in the solar system. The planets have ‘settled’ to the rhythm which most efficiently regulates solar activity in such a way as to maintain equilibrium in the solar system.

  38. E O'Connor says:

    Tallbloke

    “I have no problem with the [number of inter-related processes affecting the rate of atmospheric energy loss], I just object to the [style] used to express the results.” 🙂

  39. tallbloke says:

    Fair enough.

    Next I’ll try poetry. 🙂

  40. E O'Connor says:

    Tallbloke

    Are You fey?

    I just saw your comment after posting two couplets from the 1,500 year old Chinese ‘Thousand Character Essay’ at Lucia’s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    -:)

  41. tallbloke says:

    Some around where I live think I am, after I correctly forecast the last two cold winters!

    Repost your couplets here.

  42. E O'Connor says:

    Tallbloke

    Here’s my post at Lucia’s –

    “Lucia
    Just for a breather in this fascinating gendanken exercise, not a haiku but a couplet from the 1500 year old Chinese “Thousand Character Essay”, as translated by and with these notes by the late Professor Nathan Sturman

    “Clouds soar up to end in rain; the dew congeals to morning frost.”

    “ A very succinct and clear description, for the late 5th century, of the physical processes involved, what meteorologists would now call the behaviour of an adiabatic mass lifted into colder air under unstable conditions (high lapse rate, or rate of temperature decrease per unit of height), resulting in faster and faster lifting, further condensation and rain. The night’s dew freezes with morning’s cold.”
    http://www.angelfire.com/ns/pingyaozhuan/tce.html
    -:)”

    And here are the opening five couplets:

    The sky was black and earth yellow; space and time vast, limitless.

    Sun high or low, moon full or parsed; with stars and lodges spread in place.

    Cold arrives then heat once more; Autumn’s harvest, Winter’s store.

    Extra days round out the years; scale in tune with sun and spheres.

    Clouds soar up to end in rain; the dew congeals to morning frost.”

  43. Gary Mirada says:

    Tallbloke

    couple of things:

    1. I don’t think Judith Curry will hold you to 750 words. If the words are worth reading I am sure she will allow the ‘excess’. You may recall that in any event she is keen to put up guest posts. When you are happy with your essay, email it to JC and invite her to post it under one heading or the other

    2. I would lose the following words ‘which will never be disentangled by people convinced the whole show is driven by a trace gas occupying 0.039% of the atmosphere’ Whilst I agree with your sentiment I think it is incumbent upon us skeptics to ‘rise above’

    kind regards Gary

  44. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Why cannot people work together?

    It seems that everyone is looking to “hog the glory”.
    “Better not share what I have in case someone steals the idea”.

    The other thing is cutting others down because may be knowledgable in one area but not in others that the other person thinks they know?

    I can show how climate science screwed up royally in not understanding rotation and we ARE in a FULL pre-Ice Age all bcause focus was not lookin at actual physical planetary changes. Fluffed off to gloabal warming.

  45. Joe Lalonde says:
    November 12, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    The best indicative of the recognition of truth is, either a passionate rejection or a total disregard, which really means that nobody, or just a few, dare to comment it.

  46. Joe Lalonde says:

    PREDICTION: You will see a great many nukes fired into the atmophere in an attempt to release the pressure build-up.

  47. Joe Lalonde says:

    Adolfo,

    Thanks! I do not get the flat out incorrect, just the rejection all the time. But that in a way is good to as it has helped to be absolutely correct and pushed the reseach far beyond what I should have achieved.

  48. Joe Lalonde says:

    Sorry about prediction.

    This was in line :How do you releave an atmosphere if it has built up too much pressure and is changing the planet climate because of it?

    Adolfo,
    A grain of sand has the energy of 1669.km/hr+18.5miles/sec+300km/sec.
    Earths rotation, sun rotation and solar system motion.

  49. Zeke the Sneak says:

    tallbloke says:
    November 11, 2010 at 9:18 pm
    Zeke the sneak says:
    And also you do not have a mechanism for the planets’ modulation of solar activity, do you?

    The energy doesn’t need to come from the planets. The fact that they line up and provide a more conducive path for energy to leave the sun’s surface is sufficient to cause the change in activity on the solar surface.
    &
    I think this is why there are so many numerical ‘coincidences’ in the solar system. The planets have ‘settled’ to the rhythm which most efficiently regulates solar activity in such a way as to maintain equilibrium in the solar system.

    Thank you for exponding, tallbloke, that’s very clear. I also think it leaves room for additional discovery. It is possible that there are some non-gravitational effects exerted by the planets on the sun, besides the conductive path increased by alignments.

    An example of this in the solar system would be the fact that radio bursts from Jupiter are dependent on the phases of Io, Jupiter’s largest moon. And this satellite also triggers auroras. There are also highly accelerated particles originating from the surface of that moon, so it appears that these two are demonstrating a connection not explainable by a simple one-way gravitational model.

    At rough glance it looks like the fact that CMEs originally headed up, out of the solar system, get turned back down again into the ecliptic, may show some support of the conductive path hypothesis. I don’t know.
    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/21sep_zigzag/

    Well cheers to your submission to Dr. Curry’s website.

    Radio bursts, caused by particle flow along the magnetic lines of force, are almost entirely dependent on the phase of Io, Jupiter’s largest moon.

  50. tallbloke says:

    Interesting and good supportive evidence. That’s what I’m getting at with the effective planetary line-up being along the curve of the interplanetary magnetic field. It’s an electromagnetic effect, not a gravitational effect. It’s by far the stronger of the two forces.

  51. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    I am finding evidence that our atmosphere is lining up with the speed of this planets rotation due to pressure build-up.
    Would that not also effect the magnetic field?

  52. tallbloke says:

    Joe, I’m not sure what you are trying to get at. The atmosphere revolves along with the surface of the planet. The Earth’s magnetic field is generated down inside the interior of Earth.

  53. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Not quite, it is pulled along and has the ability to stretch. It generates the winds of this planet. It does have a ceiling point(where that is I do not know).
    The evidence I have is that as the atmosphere lines up, you have less and less surface wind. This has a signficant effect on breaking up evaporating clouds into seperate groups.
    We are talking about an atmosphere that has access to 1669.8km/hr wind energy from planetary rotation.

  54. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Sorry, is there a relationship to water vapour accumulations to gravity areas? Water has a great deal of stored energy and lightening storms are magnetic events.

  55. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Last February to about September, we had a huge high pressure system that gave us beautiful weather from Hudson Bay to Greenland. Is that not the two magnetic field locations?

  56. tallbloke says:

    Joe, you now seem to be saying that it’s the magnetism that is affecting the wind, rather than the other way round? So far as I’m aware, there are two concentrations of magnetic fields in the north, one in Canada, the other in Siberia. The ‘north magnetic pole’ is a notional point wandering between these two locations as they chane in relative strength.

    When you say the atmosphere ‘has access to’ wind energy from planetary rotation, I think we need to establish the frame of reference to get a handle on potential energy. The atmosphere goes round with the planet for the simple reason that it is ‘pegged’ to the dynamic surface processes which cause the weather. Since it all moves together, I find it hard to see how the atmosphere can have ‘access’ to the spin energy of Earth.

    Please don’t take this as negative criticism of your ideas, it may well be that I’m not understanding them from your description.

  57. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    It does for the simple reason that you stop the planet suddenly, the atmosphere of windsheer will be travelling approx. 1669.8km/hr. The relaxed atmosphere has more wind as there is less density to pull and it will be closer to the planets surface. So, there is a great deal of rotational energy in the atmosphere at it is rotating with the planet.

    Currently we have growth up mountains which means the atmosphere is stretched. The salinity changes on the ocean are ONLY happening in the first couple of inches, this suggest it is atmospheric in nature. The slowing of global wind can only mean that the atmospherre rotational pull is lining up with the plants rotation.

  58. tallbloke says:

    “The relaxed atmosphere has more wind as there is less density to pull and it will be closer to the planets surface.”

    You’ll have to explain that to me.

    “there is a great deal of rotational energy in the atmosphere”

    This is kinetic energy on a circular path caused by gravity.

    “Currently we have growth up mountains which means the atmosphere is stretched”

    Do you mean you think the friction generated by the rough surface is what ‘pulls’ the atmosphere round with the planet?

    “The salinity changes on the ocean are ONLY happening in the first couple of inches, this suggest it is atmospheric in nature.”

    Its to do with evaporation, precipitation and relative density. These processes involve the sun, the ocean and the atmosphere.

    “The slowing of global wind can only mean that the atmospherre rotational pull is lining up with the plants rotation.”

    The ‘global wind’ alternately slows and increases in a momentum exchange with the surface which affects the Earth’s length of day (LOD). The magnitude of this interection is around 10% of the larger multidecadal changes in LOD.

  59. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    You mean to say that after an Ice age, the atmosphere has exactly the same density and stored gases as before? Centrifugal force is not a factor in pushing gases from the surface? I forgot centrifugal force was NEVER understood or replicated and classed Pseudo-science. Experimentally to change the salt in the oceans would have been a mass evaporation to condense the salt and this would occur in all of the ocean, not on the surface. This is a pressure changing event. Before 1967, there was very little difference in salinity around the world.
    The same stored energy of centriugal force is also what keeps pressure built up under the surface of this planet after 4.5 billion years.
    Gravity does pull the atmosphere but on an angle, not exactly with the planet surface. It is not solid, so it has flexibilty.

  60. tallbloke says:

    Slow down and help me out with my questions.

  61. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Heat energy can only be absorbed or deflected on it’s own. Centrifugal force can store energy, compress mass and change density and release that energy. In the case of this planet, the planet surface acts as a barrier to compress gases. In a solid object, it changes the density by changing it’s center of balance, again storing energy.

    Car accidents a far worse with the direct consequence of speed. The centre of balance is shifted back and energy is stored.In essence the front of the vehicle is more fragile and the back of the vehicle is more dense.
    A coil spring is an excellent proxy in how to show this.

  62. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

    Sorry, I worked on generating a far superior turbine and in doing so litterly ripped it apart. Did charts on angle of deflection on each rotational point. figured out how the turbine blades change their density in rotation.
    A lever is actually part of a whole circle(to lift a stone, pivot point and length of lever).