SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Triffin's Market Diary

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Triffin who wrote (550)10/12/2019 6:05:07 PM
From: Triffin  Read Replies (1) of 578
 
BC: A SUPERNOVA OF COCKSURE STUPIDITY
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
The first time I read about global warming many years ago, my job experience made me instantly throw the BS flag. Warmists do not know, and in fact cannot know, what they claim to know about global temperatures.

My industrial facility has a requirement to compute — very accurately — the enthalpy of a tank of water containing about a half million gallons. This tank has leaks into it from other sources, and leaks out of it to other places. Some of the incoming leaks are steam, and some are cold water. Sometimes water is pumped into it, and sometimes water is recirculated within it. We have about 20 temperature sensors in the tank, scattered throughout at every depth, and these sensors are recalibrated every year, and water level instruments similarly recalibrated so that we know very accurately the total mass of water.

And yet, getting exact and consistent measurements of the heat content of this tank is maddeningly difficult.

And the AGW alarmists think they’ve got this down for the whole planet?

Anybody whose professional experience includes accurate energy measurements of large objects will immediately recognize the whole AGW movement as a supernova of cocksure stupidity.

If it were a matter of calculating uncertainty numbers for a static situation, that would not be hard. But when variables are changing, as I described in my response to Hugh, it’s fair to say nobody really knows how to figure that. Masses with different heat content are being added and removed continuously. Temperature sensors don’t react instantaneously. Flow is not uniformly mixed. Consider, for example, if you’ve ever gone swimming in a deep lake and experienced passing through 12-inch thick “veins” of icy cold water in an otherwise warm lake. How would you model that to compute a bulk average temperature so that the enthalpy of the mass is accurate to some arbitrary value? How many sensors would you need to know that your total enthalpy is accurate enough? And more importantly, how would you validate the numbers you’re getting? What’s the control for that?

So, once again, given the challenges involved in getting to a rigorous answer for our water tank, the AGW alarmists’ claim that we have sufficient data to compute a heath balance for the entire earth is just not credible.

The answer is that we have a regulatory limit of 95 deg. F, and we can be arbitrarily close to that limit before having to take undesirable actions to reduce it. If we exceed the limit, warrior droids from the Regulatory Empire will do Seriously Bad Things to us.

Under most circumstances, normal environmental controls for the building keep the water temperature with plenty of margin to the limit. On those occasions when it is getting close, it’s usually because a steam turbine has been operating under test, quenching the exhaust into the pool. So you have steam heat entering the pool, but also a very considerable amount of pump heat being added. In this transient situation, with a lot of stirring and mixing and hot mass addition and bulk mass removal, and with certain sensors more affected than others by the steam source, computing a meaningful bulk average temperature gets dicey. It starts to reach a point where a skeptical observer would challenge it by saying that the system is too dynamic and the measurements are not accurate enough.

I think that’s exactly the situation that prevails when trying to compute a bulk average temperature for the earth. Mr. Watts has shown that a lot of weather stations are affected by heat islands, for example. Ocean temperature buoys are FAR too widely scattered and never get calibrated. The system is highly dynamic. Water is being added to the oceans from volcanoes and icy stuff falling from space, even as water is supposedly being dragged into the mantle by subduction. There’s no way we have enough data about energy entering the biosphere versus energy leaving it to perform a reliably meaningful heat balance.

The point I was making is that this strains technology in a small tank where all the gozintas and gozoutas are known and measurable. When I’m told that somebody has a precise measurement for the whole planet that’s accurate to 1 deg. C (using instruments that seldom or never get a cal check), speaking as a professional engineer with some background in heat and temperature measurement, I just flat-out do not believe it.

Regarding the measuring of ocean temperature and heat content.

Excerpts from Testimony to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
Raymond W. Schmitt, lobbying for funding for Argo
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
July 18, 2000
whoi.edu

“In contrast to the 1,200 records of US land temperature used to examine climate trends in the report, ???? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ?????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????? ?? ???????????????????? ???????? ???????????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????????? ????????????????! For these few sites with rather short records, an observation once a month is often the best we have. This observation system is woefully inadequate”

“An abundance of evidence indicates that the key to long-term prediction is in the workings of the ocean, which has 99.9% of the heat capacity of Earth’s fluids. It is the heart of the climate “beast”, the atmosphere its rapidly waving tail, with only 0.1% of the heat capacity. Let us get to the heart of the matter, with an unprecedented new look at the ocean. We have the technical capabilities.”

“It will take a factor of 10^8 improvement in 2 horizontal dimensions (100 km to 1 mm, the salt dissipation scale), a factor of 10^6 in the vertical dimension (~10 levels to 10^7) and ~10^5 in time (fraction of a day to fraction of a second); an overall need for an increase in computational power of ~10^27. With an order of magnitude increase in computer speed every 6 years, ???? ???????? ???????? 162 ?????????? ???? ?????? ???????????????? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????????? ???????????? ???? ?????? ??????????.”

To underscore the first excerpt, here’s an animation, courtesy of Bob Tisdale, that shows the coverage of ocean temp sampling from 1955.

bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com

????????????????????: ???? ?????????????? 140 ?????????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????????? ?????????????????? ?????????? ???? ?????????? ?????????????? ???????????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????. ?????? ???????????????????? ???????? ???????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????????? ???? ?????????????? ?????????? ????????????????.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext