Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

Their analysis, summarized in a NASA-led study published Jan. 22 in the journal Nature Geosciences, found that the satellite and ocean measurements are, in fact, in broad agreement once observational uncertainties are factored in.

Peter, let me guess what they really said.

The observed data does not fit the models so the observed data is wrong and the models are right.

Jan 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

The following is from NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
Peter

NASA Study Solves Case of Earth's 'Missing Energy'

The full version of this story with accompanying images is at:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-029&cid=release_2012-029

Two years ago, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., released a study claiming that inconsistencies between satellite observations of Earth's heat and measurements of ocean heating amounted to evidence of "missing energy" in the planet's system.

Where was it going? Or, they wondered, was something wrong with the way researchers tracked energy as it was absorbed from the sun and emitted back into space?

An international team of atmospheric scientists and oceanographers, led by Norman Loeb of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va., and including Graeme Stephens of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., set out to investigate the mystery.

They used 10 years of data -- spanning 2001 to 2010 -- from NASA Langley's orbiting Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System Experiment (CERES) instruments to measure changes in the net radiation balance at the top of Earth's atmosphere. The CERES data were then combined with estimates of the heat content of Earth's ocean from three independent ocean-sensor sources.

Their analysis, summarized in a NASA-led study published Jan. 22 in the journal Nature Geosciences, found that the satellite and ocean measurements are, in fact, in broad agreement once observational uncertainties are factored in.

"One of the things we wanted to do was a more rigorous analysis of the uncertainties," Loeb said. "When we did that, we found the conclusion of missing energy in the system isn't really supported by the data."

"Missing Energy" is in the Ocean

"Our data show that Earth has been accumulating heat in the ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet), with no sign of a decline,” Loeb said. “This extra energy will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase temperatures on Earth."

Scientists generally agree that 90 percent of the excess heat associated with increases in greenhouse gas concentrations gets stored in Earth's ocean. If released back into the atmosphere, a half-watt per square meter accumulation of heat could increase global temperatures by 0.3 or more degrees centigrade (0.54 degree Fahrenheit).

Loeb said the findings demonstrate the importance of using multiple measuring systems over time, and illustrate the need for continuous improvement in the way Earth's energy flows are measured.

The science team at the National Center for Atmospheric Research measured inconsistencies from 2004 and 2009 between satellite observations of Earth's heat balance and measurements of the rate of upper ocean heating from temperatures in the upper 700 meters (2,300 feet) of the ocean. They said the inconsistencies were evidence of "missing energy."

Other authors of the paper are from the University of Hawaii, the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, the University of Reading United Kingdom and the University of Miami.

Jan 28, 2012 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Walsh

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/planning/9044947/How-the-Friends-of-the-Earth-lost-their-focus.html
Interesting piece by Lean in the DT. FoE is celebrating its 40th birthday.
(Actually it was founded in 1970, but what's couple of years between friends when you're saving the planet?!)

Jan 28, 2012 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

The Greenies won't be happy:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/uk-eu-shalegas-idUKTRE80Q0W920120127

No EU-wide ban on shale gas exploration, it's to be left to the member states to regulate (how benevolent of the EU, tugs forelock etc).

Found via post at EU Referendum:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-more-law.html

Jan 27, 2012 at 10:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterwoodentop

Interesting report on the German Powerhouse


“German policy has declared energy to be a luxury. The poorest will notice first, but they don’t have any lobby.”

Jan 27, 2012 at 10:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

The DECC report according to Louise Gray

UK will become refuge for warm Southern Europeans LOL !!!!!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9038988/Climate-change-will-make-UK-new-holiday-destination.html

Jan 27, 2012 at 10:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

One of the signers is "Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K."
Wasn't he the one on the Oxburgh review who seemed rather appalled at what he was seeing?

Yes the very same man, luckily being a Prof of Tech he is outside the sphere of influence of 'The Team' or he would need to be looking over his shoulder.

From a Delingpole article

But now we learn from Bishop Hill that support for a whitewash by Lord Oxburgh's panel may not have been as unanimous as we previously thought. After putting in an FOI request, he has got hold of some of the panellist' notes.

The ones from Michael Kelly, Prince Philip Professor of Technology at the University of Cambridge are particularly illuminating. Steve McIntyre has picked the most damning.
Here is Kelly noting the corruptibility of the peer review process:

(ii) I think it is easy to see how peer review within tight networks can allow new orthodoxies to appear and get established that would not happen if papers were wrtten for and peer reviewed by a wider audience. I have seen it happen elsewhere. This finding may indeed be an important outcome of the present review.

Jan 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterBreath of Fresh Air

Hmmm.

"No Need to Panic About Global Warming"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

One of the signers is "Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K."
Wasn't he the one on the Oxburgh review who seemed rather appalled at what he was seeing?

Jan 27, 2012 at 7:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames Evans

The future is solar. I mean Solyndra. No, Solyndra is just so 2011. In 2012, the future is Ener1.

Jan 26, 2012 at 11:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterJane Coles

Peter - thanks for posting the Governmentium comment - brilliant!

Jan 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM | lapogus

Agreed, a beautifully constructed piece of satire.

Should be printed and framed.

Jan 26, 2012 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>