2011-09-08 09:56:18Why underground temperatures do not control climate
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Update, I have drafted a blog post.

Here


As a result of the discussion on this thread, I started looking into Doug Cotton's website. Here here and here. I started to feel nauseous, so I took a break and made this graphic. The problem I have is that to illustrate the wide range of heat fluxes a bar chart or even an area chart doesn't cut it, si I tried to use volumes. I'm not sure this works, so I'd like some feedback. One problem is that in some cases I'm comparing total, steady state fluxes to changes in flux (forcings) and this might be confusing. If jg or anyone else can suggest (or make) improvements, I'd be grateful.

 

What I plan to do is an blogpost (which can become the intermediate rebuttal) plus a basic level rebttal.

And if anyone has an idea for a less crazy reference than Doug Cotton, please ley me know.

2011-09-08 10:42:15
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
99.232.158.68
There is a graphic in one of Saul Griffiths' presentations that does something similar but presents the spheres in a crescent - which seems to free space on the graphic, as I recall. Saul always praises the guy who does his graphics professionally, and kudos to you for arriving at nearly the same place. Will look for a link.
2011-09-08 11:13:07problem with volume
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

The problem is visually two volumes look quite similar even though they're actually very different. So the fossil fuel waste heat doesn't look that much different to fossil fuel radiative forcing. I'd suggest two changes:

  • Use area rather than volume
  • Only compare forcings, not total flux. So sure, compare the forcing from solar changes but including the total flux from the sun will only confuse people. If what you're trying to communicate is a comparison of different drivers of climate, you should compare what's driving the climate (eg - forcing)
2011-09-08 11:56:41
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Yes, I agree that visually the volumes don't look sufficiently unlike.

I needed to use total flux for the Earth because there is no significant change in the Earth's heat flow over recent time (even if it suddenly and magically doubled, it wouldn't make much difference). Similarly, the tidal friction term is a steady state flux that winds down only very slowly over geological time.  Comparing these fluxes to the total solar radiation flux is the apples-to-apples comparison that I wanted to achieve.

Anyway, you can't always get what you want, as the song goes; so I'll try your suggestion, John, thanks.

2011-09-08 14:06:02
scaddenp

p.scadden@gns.cri...
161.65.53.59

Perhaps one column with the total energy fluxes (tidal, fuel use,geothermal, sun, total GHE which you havent got) and a second column showing variation (forcing). Of course geothermal will be decreasing very slightly over geological time.

2011-09-08 14:09:52
Sarah
Sarah Green
sarah@inlandsea...
67.142.177.26

I agree that volumes don't convay size as well as area. Putting 0.03 next to 340 W/m^2 will be hard with area though (that's why we use log scales!).

Including the total sun output makes it look like it overwhelms everything else, though, so I'd say don't include it. Maybe instead somehow show the energy inbalance of the planet. But what to call that clearly? "Net solar heating?" Solar radiation minus heat lost to space?" This might be too hard to convay simply.

Maybe the "variations" and "increase" could be shown as several progressive circles, especially the anthropogenic one increasing over time. The solar variation could be shown gtting bigger and smaller.

 

 

2011-09-08 14:13:10
scaddenp

p.scadden@gns.cri...
161.65.53.59

And another nitpick - net anthropogenic forcings.

 

Further thoughts - about 15% of that heatflux is generated in the continental crust rather than mantle.

Doug thinks that if radius of earth was smaller then surface temps would be higher. Need to point out that surface temp at equilibrium will be determined by net surface flux.

2011-09-08 14:15:37
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.219.156.103

Maybe you could use some sort oif 3D stacked bar chart - lots of blocks in piles.

2011-09-08 14:53:56
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Yep, thanks, everyone.  I'll leave the picture of the TSI out and just mention it in the text. the graphic is too confusing, although the solar radiation really does dominate

Phil yes, "net" is needed. And crust vs mantle, yes also. I should have said "solid Earth", rather than "interior".

I honestly don't know if I want to take Doug's arguments apart in detail. It gives them (and him) more respectability than they deserve. If he really believes that about a smaller earth being warmer, he should go and live on the moon, it must be toasty to lay on the warm ground under the stars on a long lunar night.

2011-09-09 05:44:08
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

Hi Andy,

I could do something like this for your post:

This was done quickly to get you something to look at. I could clean it up, e.g., reduce my cut-away of earth to a small slice closer to it's relative contribution and revisit the placement and labeling of the width arcs representing the relative contributions of tidal force, energy use, and the interior heat. These influences appear as a 1 pixel line or smaller compared to insolation's 180 degree arc.

I've also been working on some illustrations of solar variability that could serve as a second illustration. They show the TSI satellite graphs and how the change in the graph comes done to 0.25 w/m2 reaching earth after albedo.

jg

2011-09-09 07:51:20
rustneversleeps
George Morrison
george.morrison2@sympatico...
198.96.178.33

Here is a link to a graphic I mentioned upthread. (I am only linking to it, because I believe it is too wide. Also, I think it is a public link. If someone cannot access it, let me know and I will fiddle with the access.)

I liked it because of how efficient it was in terms of getting all the different relative energy concepts on one graphic.

It does suffer from the "volume versus area" issue John mentioned, and some mashing together of "stocks" with "flows". (In the presentation itself, the "legend" is not there. This is from a magazine article, as I recall.) But I still think it is effective and efficient.

Anyway, thought I would just link to it in case the layout is of some use for a later presentation. ( jg probably knows all these tricks already...)

2011-09-09 08:14:14
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

Rust: That's a nice illustration. I think Andy's drawing above could be laid out like it to get something like this (but with Andy's original colors and great textures):

You could also add variance by using dotted lines as shown.

jg

2011-09-09 08:40:59
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Wow, thanks for the  suggestions, everyone. The problem is that areas are really only any god for compaing over three orders of magnitude.

I was wondering if cubes might be better than spheres to illustrate volume, since, there's a 2D shape as well as shading to clue the eye in that we're looking at a volume rather than an area. 

jg, I stole the billiard balls from here.

 

OK, here's a first attempt with cubes. each one is ten times the volume of the next one, meaning that we're covering six orders of magnitude. It would look better arranged differently (losing the perspective illusion) and if the cubes were different colours.

2011-09-09 09:22:53
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

I see your cubes and raise you these (volume corresponds to watts per meter):

2011-09-09 09:36:39
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

That is very cool! I fold!

Since this is turning into a graphics thread, here's a link to an infographic by RMI

2011-09-09 09:45:18
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.162.57

jg, great layout.

 

Andy, for the actual blog post, will you only be discussing the relative energy levels, or going into more detail?  If the later you may find an illustration like the one below useful.  It directly contradicts Cotton's stated theory:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient

 

IMO this sort of image is more effective if taken from actual measurements rather than a schematic, but I cannot source a relavent graph for you.

2011-09-09 14:29:14
scaddenp

p.scadden@gns.cri...
161.65.53.59

Well active erosion is happening all time and we arent being cooked by the exposed rock. However, rapid erosion does result in steeper gradient. The trouble with "real" measurement, is that real world you tend to have several things going on (what's causing the rapid erosion?), signatures from previous events and hetrogeneous materials (in terns of conductivity, heat capacity and heat productiivity). Not so easy to unpack in a simple graphic.

2011-09-10 04:20:35
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Phil, thanks. Yes, remove a layer and the heat flow increases locally until equilibrium; or add a sedimentary blanket and the heat flow decreases for a while. On a planetary scale, both processes happen at once in different places and mostly balance out, and they are too slow to make a difference on millennial scales. I have read some articles on thermal modelling and borehole  observations in the Canadian Arctic and it's very complicated (there's the additional issue of latent heat effects of melting pemafrost there). Where it gets even more complicated is when you start to look at the role of hydrothermal fluids, which make a big difference to local heat flows, especially at mid ocean ridges.

I haven't actually worked out the post yet and I don't know how much I want to directly engage Cotton; generally, I think it best to positively assert real knowledge rather than negatively argue against specific bogus claims. (I also need to reread the discussion thread on Trenberth.) Basically my blog post will be an explanation of Earth heat flow: measurement, mechanisms and distribution. Cotton seems to confuse (among many other things) heat flows and thermal potential energy and he also confuses the "core" with the solid earth. The take-home point for the basic rebuttal will be that Earth's heatflow is small, well constrained and steady, whereas the solar energy flux is huge in comparison, and the radiative forcing we are inflicting on the planet is twenty times bigger than even the steady state heat flow. Fluctuations in solar output are also much bigger than the steady state solid Earth heat flow. Other energy flows such as tidal forces or "waste" heat are even less significant than solid earth heat flows.

2011-09-10 05:34:08
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

Andy,

I did a rework of the box metaphor image in case you plan to use it. Let me know if you want revisions:

I think this is a good candidate for the Climate Graphics section. (I tried to add it there, but I'm encountering technical difficulties; I'll have to consult John on what I'm doing wrong).

 

2011-09-11 07:31:32
scaddenp

p.scadden@gns.cri...
203.118.182.208

"Tidal Energy" makes people think of energy for ocean tidal capture. Needs to be more explicit.

2011-09-11 08:37:26
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.162.57

scaddenp, the energy form the Earth's body tide is included with the energy from radioactive decay in the geothermal energy.  That may need to be mentioned.

 

Seeing we are nitpicking, I was wondering if a figure for the energy released by chemical and nuclear explosions can be included.  While not significant compared to Solar irradiance, it is significant compared to, for example, tidal energy.  Perhaps a chemist could indicate whether chemical explosives should be included as a seperate term or whether it is derived from organic sources and hence is included in other terms (solar irradiance, energy production).

2011-09-11 10:09:48
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Phil, yes, good point. I'll have to explain this figure carefully and I'll probably have to ask jg to alter the lettering on his excellent figure for this and other inputs.

Tom, yes indeed, the tidal energy is already included in the geothermal energy flow. The only reason I have added it is because some of the "skeptics" assert that the tidal energy term is a big deal and I just wanted to show how it's dwarfed by the other factors. When I get round to writing the post, I may decide to ignore this point altogether and keep the article simple and focussed.

2011-09-11 11:15:57
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.162.57

Andy, my understanding is that energy from the body tide is included in geothermal energy, but energy from the ocean tide is not, so it ought to be included as a seperate term.  Further, to the extent that this is a rebutal of Doug Cotton, he claims the latitudinal variationin surface temperature is a consequence of the latitudinal variation of energy received by the Earth from the body tide.  I don't know how much detail you want to go into on that, but it seems to me that mentioning the tidal energy is necessary if you intend to rebut Cotton.

2011-09-11 11:34:16
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.162.57

Again considering the rebutal of Cotton, it is essential to his theory that heat flow from the interior of the Earth should vary with latitude in same way as surface temperatures do.  That is of course, not the case, and a graphic showing the heat flow from the interior of the Earth may be very useful:

 

"This map shows color-coded contours of the global distribution of heat flow at the surface of the Earth's crust. Major plate boundaries and continent outlines are also shown. The fundamental data embodied in this map are the more than 24,000 field measurements in both continental and oceanic terrains, supplemented by estimates of the heat flow in the unsurveyed regions. The estimates are based on empirically determined charactersitic values for the heat flux in various geological and tectonic settings. Observations of the oceanic heat flux have been corrected for heat loss by hydrothermal circulation through the oceanic crust. The global data set so assembled was then subjected to a spherical harmonic analysis. The map is a representation of the heat flow to spherical harmonic degree and order 12."

From here:

http://www.geophysik.rwth-aachen.de/IHFC/heatflow.html

 

That image can be contrasted with the average surface temperatures of the Earth:

 

Seasonal (January and July) images are also available at the source of the above image:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_surface_temperature_distribution

2011-09-12 08:51:41
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Thanks, Tom

Yes, I was going to use some maps like those.

Thanks also for the clarification on body tides vs ocean tides. According to the abstract of this paper theOcean Tide is about 2.4TW, whereas the the Body (Earth) Tide is about 0.1TW, contrasting with about 45TW for Geothermal flux and 10,000 times as much as that for the incoming solar.

I'm sometimes wondering if Cotton is pulling our leg here. 

2011-09-12 10:28:11
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.162.57

Andy, that paper only discusses the M2 tide, which is the largest, but not the only tide.  Apparently there are 15 different tides caused by the relative motions of the Earth, Moon, Sun and other planetary bodies, of which the most significant are, in order of effect, the M2, S2, K1, O1, N2, K2, and P1.  The weakest of these has approximately 10% of the effect of the M2 tide, but as the crustal motions induced by the x2 tides are distinct from those of the x1 tides, that may not translate out to approximately 10% of the energy.  If energy scales with magnitude and frequency of the tide, the M2 tide would represent approximately 45% of the total tidal energy recieved by the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_tide 

For a very technical (maths heavy) treatment:

http://champs.cecs.ucf.edu/Library/Journal_Articles/pdfs/Body%20tides%20on%20an%20elliptical,%20rotating,%20elastic%20and%20oceanless%20earth.pdf

 

Apparently S2  tides are not calculated because the data is "confounded by insolation and atmospheric effects".

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=2001GeoJI.144..471R&db_key=AST&page_ind=0&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_VIEW&classic=YES

 

As an indirect approach to determining the total tidal energy dissipation, you could make use of the fact that all that energy comes by slower rotation of the Earth.  Some of the energy lost by the Earth's slowing pushes the Moon into a higher orbit.  Consequently, by useing the figures for the lengthening of the Earth's day, and the increase of the Moon's altitude, a maths savvy person (which excludes me) could calculate an upper limit on the energy gain as heat from tidal forces.

 

 

2011-09-12 10:55:12Underground pools of solar energy
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

Among his more bizarro-world claims, DougC has solar radiation accumulating in 'underground pools' and can see 'seasonal variation' in borehole temps.  While he relies on geothermal heat flow out, he somehow sneaks solar energy in.  Apparently Laws of Thermo need not apply in his personal htrae.  I'd work in something about the expanding earth theory.

2011-09-12 15:41:41
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Tom, arghh. Yes, I can see that by doing some kind of kinetic energy balance for the rotating earth and the lunar orbit we could potentially  nail down a fairly good total figure for tidal energy effects. Not only is calculating this beyond my ken but it seems crazy to go to these lengths when, even if all those other body tides add up to 1% of the geothermal flow, which is itself 5% of the net anthopogenic forcing. And all the solid Earth effects, even if cyclical, affect the whole mantle and crust and can't possibly cause short period and/or regional effects on climate. Once you get into length of day in detail, you have added complications such as this, apparently respectable, stuff from NASA, involving flow in the outer core, length of day variations and links to climate, cosmic rays etc. I'd like to see Doug Cotton issued with a restraining order to keep him away from that NASA link.

Muoncounter: expanding Earth. That brings back memories of discussion of Warren Carey's ideas (and Paul Dirac's hypothesis that G is not constant) when I was an undergraduate,  back when the CO2 concentration was 325ppm. I think I'll leave discussion of that stuff out. 

If anyone's interested, there's a good article on that ultradeep borehole in Germany. They had great difficulties measuring temperatures there because they had to cool the bottom hole by 70 degrees and that ended up heating up the top hole section.

2011-09-12 18:55:09
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.37.4

I haven't checked the numbers or references, but:

"The dissipation of energy by tidal friction averages about 3.75 terawatts, of which 2.5 terawatts are from the principal M2 lunar component and the remainder from other components, both lunar and solar.[12]"

2011-09-13 02:22:55
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.162.57

Thanks for that, Neal.

 

Following up to the wiki article's source, I find the following values:

 

Total energy from lunar tides: 3.2 TW

Total energy from solar tides: 0.5 TW

 

Distributed as,

Earth (Body) Tides: 0.2 TW

Atmospheric Tides: 0.02 TW

Surface (Ocean) Tides: 3.5 TW

The surface tides are further broken down as,

Marginal Seas: 2.6 TW

Ridges and Seamounts: 0.9 TW

This information is drawn from Figure for of Munk and Wunsch 1998

http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/Munk_Wunsch_DSR_1998_32129.pdf

 

The 0.2 TW dissipated as body tides are included in the energy measured as escaping from the Earth.

2011-09-13 03:45:16
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Thanks, Tom & Neal. That reference is very helpful.

2011-09-13 10:15:15
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

I have drafted a blog post, comments please. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/heatflow.html

 

jg, I'll have to ask you to change some numbers on the figure

TSI... 341W/sq m +/- 0.35 W/sqm

Geothermal 0.9 W/sq/m

Tidal 0.007 W/sqm

2011-09-13 10:43:41
scaddenp

p.scadden@gns.cri...
161.65.53.59

"Among his more bizarro-world claims, DougC has solar radiation accumulating in 'underground pools' and can see 'seasonal variation' in borehole temps."

Well not that bizarro. Horizontal Ground Source Heat Pumps depend on this. You store heat in summer and mine it in winter. However, the annual average is of course in equilibrium. The seasonal variation affects the upper few meters. Exactly how deep depends on local materials heat diffusivity. If there was significant energy to mine this way, we wouldnt have an energy problem.

2011-09-13 11:38:33
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.163.165

An excellent blog post.  I have two nitpicks though.  The first is that there is no residual heat worth mentioning in the Earth's interior.  Lord Kelvin calculated in the 19th century that it would take between 100 million (his earlier estimate) and 20 million (his later estimate) for the original heat to dissipate to current levels.  Given the 4.5 billion years since the formation of the Earth, and 4 billion years since the late planetary bombardment, the remaining residual heat is negligible, with all remaining heat coming from radioactive decay and tides.

 

The second nitpick is the same as scaddenp's.

 

Thank's for the acknowledgement, though I do not think I am worth singling out in that regard.

 

 

 

 

 

2011-09-14 10:05:14Opening lines
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

I wouldn't start with the 'it might not be CO2' opening.  Why not just go with a straight rebuttal format?  Earth's interior heat is said to control surface temperature.  What the science says:  it doesn't.  Other mechanisms are just distractions; this lunacy is rich enough to be buried on its own lack of merit.

2011-09-14 10:15:06Ground source heat pumps vs. Cotton's nonsense pump
muoncounter
Dan Friedman
dfriedman3@comcast...
76.30.158.238

Phil,

I presume the need for a pump is significant in such a system.  Cotton has heat arbitrarily flowing in and out of the ground as he deems fit.  This comment is a gold mine:

it is the sun's heat which causes what is only temporary warming each day. Solar heat flows into the surface and back out again. The net flow is small, but the absolute flow each way is quite significant as you should know if you've ever burnt your feet on hot sand. Because that flow in and out is far greater than the net flow, equilibrium can be and is achieved between the surface and the first 1mm or so of the atmosphere.

This one is platinum:

if the radius of the Earth were 9Km less, then, where the deepest borehole in Germany is located, it would be about 250 to 270 deg.C on the surface, because that is the temperature 9,000 metres down that borehole.

2011-09-14 11:23:45
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Tom

I have read conflicting claims about how much heat is radioactivity and how much is the rest. The "rest" is always less than half and sometimes as little as 5-10%; of this I am not sure how much is from the intitial agglomeration and how much is due to susbsequent fractionation and the latent heat for the formation of the soild core, which is ongoing, I think). What I'll do is rearrange the order of the first two bullet points to reflect the relative importance and tighten up the wording to make sure that residual heat is downplayed.

Yes, I was going to mention Kelvin but I thought that would be a little off topic. 

I think Phil's comment at 10:43 AM referred to a previous comment by muoncounter rather than to my draft. Please clarify for me what your second point was

Mouncounter: I opened with the quote from Cotton because that the format that the rebuttals use, colour coded with a pink background. Maybe for the blogpost, I'll leave that out. [Added later, I now see what you mean, I cut out the first sentence or two the quote.]

I cou;ld have said more about Cotton's crackpot theories that you cited with the gold and platinum quotes you diug up.  My purpose was just to show that heatflow is well measured, small and steady. All the rest of Cotton's stuff is pathetic arm waving that we can ignore for now, although I expect Cotton will entertain us all in the comments.

2011-09-14 14:24:55
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
96.229.221.76

Hi Andy, I'll have o resize the purple cube to have the correct volume for 0.9 W/m^2. That part is on my 3d program at work, so I'll get it to you in the morning (about 10 hours from now).

2011-09-14 22:09:12
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

How about a simpler version of the names? Solar insolation = sunlight?

 

Or, more relevantly, non-reflected sunlight? Only ~240 W m-2 is actually used.

 

EDIT; the cube graphic is excellent IMO! Simple and effective. As long as all the numbers are double checked and referenced (or referenceable) then I love it!

2011-09-15 01:08:17
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

Andy, can you confirm the 0.9 for energy flow from the interior. Your first diagrams had 0.08, and my own notes from another project show 0.05. So please confirm that the correct figure is a whole decimal point higher. What made me question is that 0.9 when shown as a cube is very close in appearance to GHG forcing, which is a cube of volue 1.5.

thanks

2011-09-15 02:34:03
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Sorry jg that was a typo on my part. It should be 0.09. The original number came from Wikipedia (44-47 TW 0.08 w/m2) but the paper I quoted had a higher number for heat flow (45-49TW 0.09w/m2) The Wikipedia w/m2 number is also rounded incorrectly in the original.

I changed the TSI to 341 to be consistent with the Trenberth number on his figure.

Mark: On labelling I think we should change the "Solar Irradiance"  label to "Incoming Solar Radiation" to make it consistent with the Trenberth figure (Fig 6). I'll add a reference for the "waste heat" number but otherwise every other number is referenced. That doesn't mean that I haven't made a fat-finger error somewhere with my keyboard or calculator!

2011-09-15 03:02:28
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

 

Here's the revision:

 

I couldn't resist investigating Mark's comment on 240 absorbed:

If you want, I could make the traced box that represents 240 w/m^2 fit with the diagram. It would appear to be inside the semi-transparent yellow box.

jg

 

 

 

 

 

2011-09-15 04:28:08
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

jg, thanks. I think we had better stick with the simpler diagram, which already needs a fairly long caption. The albedo etc is captured in Figure 6.

2011-09-15 10:33:16
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.135.195

I'm not a good proof reader, so I won't speak to issues of spelling and grammar etc, but beyond that it seems to me that once the final graphic is sorted out, this article is good to go.

2011-09-15 12:17:55
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

I think it's all done now but I would appreciate some more eyeballs to run over it.

I don't know how to start a new rebuttal (I tried and probably screwed up), nor do I know how to do the formatting at the top "What the science says" etc.

I'll do a Basic version once the Intermediate rebuttal is up.

2011-09-15 14:43:04
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Looks good Andy, I went in and made some minor formatting edits and such.

I added the rebuttal to the list, you've just got to go in and claim it.

2011-09-15 18:48:33
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I love JGs cubes.

2011-09-15 18:49:29
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I also think the cubes should be made an SkS graphic resource.

(with some white space as a border)

2011-09-15 18:52:17
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Also it's metre, not meter :-)

2011-09-15 19:10:37
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
192.171.166.133

Also... the uncertainty figure is not very professional.

 

If you're reporting +-0.35 W m-2 then the original figure should be to the same level of precision. 341.00 or whatever :P

Only very small complaints. It looks great :)

2011-09-15 19:16:44
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.34.188

Paul, don't Yanks spell it meter?

2011-09-16 00:57:58
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

Here's a revised version attending to Mark's and Pauls commendable attention to detail (white space added and precession consistent). Also, I'll ad this to the climate graphics section as suggested.

 

2011-09-16 01:17:52
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

Also, I can say "meter" or "metre". It doesn't mattre to me either way. Do we have standard on this?

2011-09-16 01:29:53jg
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Your graphic talents are needed over at 20,679 physicians say 'Luckies are less irritating' re this week's Toon of the Week. 

2011-09-16 02:09:58
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

My personal preference, due to my ethnic origins, is to use UK/European spellings (metre, colour etc) but here in Canada (and, I think, in Australia and maybe NZ) both European and American spellings are used, according to taste. So, when posting on SkS, I submit to Yankee hegemony and use their spellings, although I lapse frequently. It might be an idea to make US spellings an SkS standard.

As for the solar irradiance I suggest that we remove the +/- 0.35 from the figure and I'll note the variance in the caption, with a reference, While you are at it, jg, please change the irradiance figure to 341.3 to make it consistent with the Trenberth figure that I have used as Fig 6.

2011-09-16 02:26:34
jg
John Garrett
garrjohn@gmail...
98.112.44.162

Andy, I updated the figure. See above.

2011-09-16 04:06:07
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

OK, I have updated the figure (thanks) and tweaked the text a little. Ready to go now, unless there are any other suggestions.

I have also copied it to the Intermediate rebuttal but can't fill in the "Skeptic argument" bit.

2011-09-16 04:30:17
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I can fill in the skeptic argument and that sort of thing.  Are you going to do a basic version too?

2011-09-16 06:36:46
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Yes, I will do a basic version, soon I hope. (Time presses with other priorities)