Vast Wind And Solar Farms Would Bring More Rain to Africa

By Roni Dengler | September 6, 2018 1:18 pm
wind energy turbines generate power in africa could increase rainfall

Adding wind and solar energy farms in Africa – and elsewhere – could bring increased rainfall, according to a new study. (Credit: Nebojsa Markovic/shutterstock)

Scientists want to power the world with solar and wind energy, a feat they say is possible with large-scale wind and solar farms. Now, an international team of researchers says that building such an energy factory in the Sahara desert would come with a surprising boon: more rainfall.

The discovery means feeding the global power supply with renewable energy would be beneficial not only to regional climates but also society.

“In the light of our findings… we could transform our energy sources,” said Safa Motesharrei, a systems scientist at the University of Maryland in College Park, who co-led the new work. “That can lead in turn to sustaining freshwater, food and life on our planet.”

A Bright Idea

The notion to construct massive renewable energy installations in a desert came from livestock. Thanks to sheep, goats and cows chowing down on foliage, the landscape in Sahel, a semi-arid transition region south of the Sahara, changed from dark, light-absorbing vegetation to bright, reflective sand, which led to drought and hampered plant growth.

The feedback loop inspired Motesharrei’s colleague, Eugenia Kalnay, a meteorologist, who co-led the new research. Kalnay wondered whether large solar panel farms would reduce surface reflectivity and push the feedback loop in the opposite direction, toward more rainfall. She also thought wind farms might boost precipitation by pushing air and moisture up into the atmosphere near the turbine fields.

Make It Rain

The researchers put their idea to the test in a climate model of wind and solar farms in the Sahara desert. Their vast 3.5 million square miles of simulated energy tech would generate a whopping 82 terawatts of electrical power, far more than the 18 terawatts of total energy the world currently uses. The model incorporated dynamic changes to vegetative cover and showed the renewable energy installation would increase daily precipitation in the Sahara about 150 percent. The model indicated similar benefits would come from renewable energy farms that only covered the northwest quadrant of the desert.

Sahel, an area suffering socioeconomic hardship due to lack of freshwater, would feel the most benefit from such a scheme. Precipitation there could jump up by nearly 20 inches per year according to the model, the scientists report today in the journal Science.

“The extra rain would bring life to this arid region,” said Motesharrei.

The team also confirmed Kalnay’s initial suspicions about the vegetation-surface reflectivity-precipitation feedback. They found that 80 percent of the bump in precipitation from wind farms came from the cascade.

“We were quite surprised to see the magnitude of these increases,” said Yan Li, a climatologist at the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign. “Feedbacks lead to surprising outcomes beyond what the human mind is capable of perceiving.”

Although the renewable energy installations the scientists modeled also led to bumps in temperature, they say these effects are small and that their research calls for more experiments. They’d like to see if they can fine tune how large solar and wind farms might have to be in different parts of the Sahara and Middle East regions to maximize precipitation there.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment, top posts
MORE ABOUT: energy, sustainability
ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

    What happens to this planet when mankind continuously harvests a few terawatts from its winds? The energy comes from somewhere, now not to,be returned. Social criminals love Red Queen races.

    • Michael Markussen

      The energy comes from the sun and its not running out the next 5 billion years…Is the energy from the sun that drives all weather systems on Earth.

      • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

        Don’t change the subject. Pull 10 terawatts out of

        earth(.)nullschool(.)net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=33.21,10.92,671/loc=7.087,28.798
        … 20 mph at the circle, 07 Sept 2018

        and you fundamentally change Europe’s weather. We worship the lame, halt, dim-witted, addicted, perverse, diverse, deserving, delusional, sexually ambiguous, and proven unable to the exclusion of the Gifted. We obtain a future of intent and ritual process, not product, punctuated by tests of faith and inquisitions.

        • Keifer

          You’re missing a lot of context. The energy of the wind is specifically in the weight of moving particles. These particles are propelled by pressure imbalances due to the uneven heating of the sun. Their are two ways that turbines create electricity. Drag, when these particles specifically impact an object and impart energy on that object, and Lift, when the flow of particles across an airfoil creates an uneven pressure differential causing the airfoil to experience a lift force perpendicular to the flow of particles. All of the commercial turbines you see utilize airfoils and lift to generate their rotational energy. This means that the moving air particles are not impeded or stopped, but instead create a turbulent wake that travels for a bit before becoming a laminar flow again. Which is why a wind turbine can be directly behind another wind turbine and still generate electricity, and the only losses are from turbulence, not from a slowing of the wind speed. Your assumption that energy is being “pulled out” of the system is an erroneous one. A standard building presents a much larger drag profile than a commercial turbine ever might. Your question could be applied to any man-made structure. Do you ask these questions about skyscrapers, your house, the car you drive to work and the numerous other cars on the road, the city you live in? They all present a drag profile. If you are so concerned about drag causing large scale changes to weather patterns, then a much more pressing source would be the city you (or I) live in. Maybe we start with the biggest cities first? Tokyo, London, NYC, Los Angeles, Beijing, Dubai, Paris, Vancouver, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Chicago, Singapore, Istanbul, San Francisco, Kuala Lumpur, Shenzhen, Seattle, Panama City, Toronto, Busan, Philadelphia, and Taipei. Pick one, lets tear it down so that we can see what the weather would have been like without all of these surfaces presenting drag to the wind. I’m sure the tradeoff will be worth it.

          • Popcorn Joe

            LMAOff Keifer… Now there is an answer to remember !!

            Do you think he will understand it? ^..^

          • OWilson

            Our chaotic climate is indeed a hardy beast!

            No silly Bayesian butterfly wing theory, is going to cause an Atlantic hurricane! :)

          • RAA

            It is well established that cities, particularly the larger ones create/modify their (local) weather. They are heat/pollution islands and tall buildings do modify the local wind patterns. That said, individual cars and houses are akin to individual ants crossing a lawn, microscopic and of no impact. But combine a million homes or cars, as in a large city, and the effects can be like army ants swarming across that same lawn. Macroscopic and of considerable impact. City buildings,except perhaps for a few very recent designs, do not attempt to extract energy from the air flow around them, acting only as an impediment to that air flow, with resultant turbulence behind them.

            Wind turbines do attempt to extract (pull out) energy from the wind flow, but seek to minimize the concurrent turbulent effects. Energy being neither created nor destroyed, any energy obtained by the wind turbine must be extracted from the wind energy field. The turbulent wind wake velocity deficit downstream of a wind turbine is an indication of that. It can take forty or more rotor diameters to resolve that turbulent wake velocity deficit. Wind farms only extract a (very) small portion of the available wind field energy. Put enough wind turbines in a given wind field and there will eventually be no meaningful wind velocity left to rotate the remaining downstream wind turbines.

            “1. Introduction
            Due to the fast growth in the number of wind farms around the world extensive investigations have been carried out during the past two decades to better understand and predict wake flows behind wind turbines. The velocity deficit and turbulence levels in the wakes are parameters that define the available power and structural stability of wind turbines located downwind of other turbines in the farms.”

            Wake effect on a uniform flow behind wind-turbine model

            V L Okulov 1,2 I V Naumov 2, R F Mikkelsen 1, and J N Sørensen 11

            Department of Wind Energy, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Lyngby, Denmark 2

            Institute of Thermophysics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia

    • Popcorn Joe

      So you are saying the wind that comes off of say the Pacific Ocean will be used up if it is harnessed by wind turbines.

      Or wind that swoops down to the valleys below a mountain range will be used up if some is harnessed by wind turbines… Hmmm, do you honestly believe that?

      When wind turns a wind turbine do you think that the wind stops there and doesn’t pass on to the rear side of the turbine blades… Yes the turbine wheels absorb energy from the wind but that doesn’t mean over time the wind will stop blowing.

      When sailing ships were the primary source of energy for shipping, do you believe the sailing ships were using up the planet’s wind energy?

  • Mike Richardson

    Sounds like a wind-win to me. ☺

  • OWilson

    For a little perspective, covering the entire Sahara Desert, 3,500,000 square miles, an area as big as China, containing 10 illiterate countries, with wind and solar farms, would be a monumental engineering feat, the likes of which mankind has never before seen!

    Then one would hope the anticipated increased rainfall would fall where it is supposed to and not be blown like the Sahara dust storms, by the prevailing trade winds, which finish up in the Atlantic Ocean.

    Computer simulations are fun and inexpensive, and I’m a big believer in science and technology, but in this case definitely “more study needed!” :)

    • Earthling4

      I have to agree. They make it sound like the plan is to back up a truck with 82TW of generation on it, plug it in, and open up an umbrella to stay dry. Desert does not become arable land overnight, no matter how much water you pour on it. And there probably isn’t enough raw material available on the planet to build this colossus, even if we could magically generate the money to pay for it. The distribution infrastructure would be another nightmare. Add to that multiple international boundaries to cross and multiple markets to incorporate, along with the storage batteries necessary to flatten out the supply curve to fit the demand curve… It would be be easier to teach a fish to sing the National Anthem.

      • OWilson

        Since the Sahara is the home to literally dozens of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, the Environmental Assessment alone would take a couple million years, throwing in the usual crowd of protesters! :)

  • mea_mark

    I wonder how far down this idea can be scaled and still get some benefit?

    • CB

      Have you seen the size of the Sahara? 😉

      Actually, I would bet the results are specific to the Sahara. Heating a desert isn’t normally the way to get more water into it… I’m guessing there are some very specific winds over the ocean that cause the rainfall to increase in the model.

      • Popcorn Joe

        The Atlantic Ocean currents have changes due to global warming… That causes dramatic weather changes in the Americas and Europe and Africa.

    • david russell

      Down to zero, as it’s a complete waste of money, resources, and effort.

  • david russell

    Total pipe-dream. Brought to you by the gremlins at the climate factory, for whom no idea is too goofy to promote seriously.

    • OWilson

      It pays well!

      And there’s tenure! :)

    • CB

      “no idea is too goofy to promote seriously.”

      lol!

      You mean like the idea that heat energy cannot pass between the sea and the sky, David?

      You have admitted to selling fossil fuel, which is changing the climate.

      Why should anyone believe you when you make claims about the changing of the climate?

      “Sea surface temperature increased over the 20th century and continues to rise.”

      (EPA, “Climate Change Indicators in the United States: Sea Surface Temperature”)

      • david russell

        Yes. The oceans warm the air as the oceans are 1-2C warmer than the atmosphere above them.

        What warms the oceans? Answer: surface insolation. All other surface thermal processes cool the oceans.

        • CB

          I also asked you why anyone should believe a single word you say, given your blatantly obvious conflict of interest.

          Can you give no reason?

          “The atmosphere affects oceans, and oceans influence the atmosphere. As the temperature of the air rises, oceans absorb some of this heat and also become warmer.”

          (US Environmental Protection Agency, “Warmer Oceans: A Student’s Guide to Global Climate Change”)

          • david russell

            The EPA????? What do they know? As the temperature of the air rises, so does the air itself. Hot air goes up, to be replaced by cool air from higher up. This is called convection. Maybe someone ought to inform the EPA about convection.

            Anyway, the “hot” air today is not as hot as the “hotter” ocean (hotter by 1-2C on average).

            There are 2 reasons you should believe what I say: 1) I’m right; and 2) I never lie.

          • CB

            “The EPA?”

            Yes, David! The EPA!

            Since you have been offered multiple opportunities to explain why anyone should believe a single word you say, and you have run like a coward from each and every one, I will conclude that there is no reason to believe a single word you say.

            This is the process by which liars like yourself should be identified and eliminated from the conversation.

            “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

            (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Global Warming 101”)

          • david russell

            I gave you 2 reasons: 1) I’m right; 2) I don’t lie.

            You just actually upvoted one of my posts. There’s something really loony about you, but folks who’ve been around know that already.

            The Union of Concerned Scientists is a kook organization. Pay them no heed.

            FWIW, the very post of mine you upvoted explained how it’s surface insolation that warms the ocean. As 93% of the warming we have goes into the oceans, that fact alone puts you at odds with the screwballs at Union of Concerned Scientists and their above statement.

          • CB

            “I gave you 2 reasons: 1) I’m right; 2) I don’t lie.”

            LOL!

            Sweetheart, those are reasons not to believe you.

            People who are right and people who are telling the truth don’t need to go around broadcasting it.

            Ask yourself if the attention you got for your dishonesty was worth the destruction of your children’s future.

            “Loss of ice shelf mass is accelerating, especially in West Antarctica, where warm seawater is reaching ocean cavities beneath ice shelves.”

            (Nature Geoscience, “Impacts of warm water on Antarctic ice shelf stability through basal channel formation”, Karen E. Alley, et al, 2016)

          • david russell

            “People who are right and people who are telling the truth don’t need to go around broadcasting it.” Do you have any peer-reviewed science to back up this speculation or it is just you flapping your gums?

            Yes. West Antarctica is losing ice …… FROM BELOW (a combination of volcanoes and shifting ocean currents bringing more warm tropical water to the poles). Of course this has NOTHING TO DO WITH AGW.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            West Antarctica is losing ice …… FROM BELOW (a combination of volcanoes and shifting ocean currents bringing more warm tropical water to the poles). Of course this has NOTHING TO DO WITH AGW.

            No, the papers clearly state that the amount of warming not only is barely a blip on the warming (localized area as well), but tropical waters don’t penetrate the circumpolar current.

            You should look it up before you blather. Unless you are embarrassing yourself so someone pays attention to you.

          • david russell

            You are wrong. Prove you point. Show the science. Why is West Antarctica melting when it’s at the same distance from the tropics as parts of Antarctica that aren’t melting. What does your quote from the science paper even mean when it speaks of warm water, other than that from the oceans (or volcanoes)?

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Why is West Antarctica melting when it’s at the same distance from the tropics as parts of Antarctica that aren’t melting.

            Ocean currents undercutting grounding lines.

          • david russell

            Ok. I buy that. So we agree — nothing to do with AGW.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            AGW is warming the oceans. Are you daft?

          • david russell

            No. The oceans are warmed by surface insolation.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            So decreasing output from the sun is increasing ocean heat.

            Brilliant.

          • david russell

            Surfaces insolation is solar output TOA mitigated by atmospheric conditions. You are conflating the two….. not so brilliant. Read the link I provided.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            You’re a time-wasting, gibbering fool.

          • david russell

            No. I just obliterated another comment of yours. You’re the cartoon character whose cigar has blown up in his face and he’s now standing there face-blackened, a dazed look, and wondering what the heck just happened.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            The scientists disagree with you.

          • david russell

            No. They do not…. not the one ones qualified to opine on the subject — like ones who’ve published scientific papers on the matter.

            I posted a link to a very robust discussion on the reasons for ocean warming. Unfortunately it got bounced to PENDING. But perhaps you can still uncover it and follow the link. Very informative. Conclusion: Ocean warming not due to AGW.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Yes they do, as I’ve already shown. You’re a time-wasting, gibbering fool.

          • david russell

            Another lie on your part.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Undercutting:

            Yet, recent studies have revealed that ice loss is accelerating. In addition, floating ice shelves that help restrict Antarctic glaciers from flowing into the Southern Ocean are thinning and weakening.

            In both cases the primary culprit is warming ocean currents that are melting the undersides of these vast glacial systems where they are afloat. Sea level rise from glacial melt in Antarctica, Greenland, and rapidly dwindling mountain glaciers, compounded by thermally expanding oceans, could disrupt the lives of hundreds of millions as soon as 2100. http://theconversation com/the-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-in-trouble-but-the-ground-beneath-it-may-buy-some-time-98368

          • david russell

            You’re making my case.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Warming ocean currents from AGW.

          • david russell

            AGW can’t warm the oceans.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            The scientists I quoted in this thread refute you.

          • david russell

            Prove it. Show the refutation. You can’t.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            You’re a gibbering fool.

            david russell
            Prove it. Show the refutation. You can’t.

            to this ignorant assertion:

            david russell
            AGW can’t warm the oceans.

            The already-refuted:

            Derpitudinous_Neologism • 15 minutes ago

            Volcanoes not melting:

            No, said Loose. “Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe,

            Link to comment: https://disqus com/home/discussion/d-brief/vast_wind_and_solar_farms_would_bring_more_rain_to_africa/#comment-4091327453

          • rightyone

            Of course it can.

          • david russell

            Peer-reviewed science quantifying this?

          • rightyone

            Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics?

          • david russell

            The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.

          • rightyone

            Very good. You know how to use Google. So what happens when the oceans absorb backradiation from the atmosphere?

            Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans
            Barnett et al.
            Science 08 Jul 2005:
            Vol. 309, Issue 5732, pp. 284-287
            DOI: 10.1126/science.1112418

          • david russell

            I’ve just refuted your paper but the link doing so has put my post into PENDING. You’ll have to open it up and follow the link. This is the 2nd time I’ve tried to post this.

            In essence, it shows the absence of correlation between CO2 levels and ocean temps over years’ time. No correlation, no causation.

          • rightyone

            CO2 and ocean temperatures are highly correlated.

            You haven’t refuted anything.

            Did you even read the paper?

          • david russell

            Incorrect, as my link shows.

          • rightyone

            There is no link David. It doesn’t appear.

            Anyone can download the CO2 and temperature data an find that the correlation coefficient is over 0.9.

            You are wrong.

          • david russell

            Of course there is. It’s one of those marked PENDING, as I have explained twice.

          • rightyone

            Do you know how Disqus works? If you see it as pending, that does not mean that I can see it.

            That’s why it says pending. It has been approved yet.

          • david russell

            Like I said I could only read the abstract but that sufficed. Its claims were refuted by my link.

          • rightyone

            When did you say you could only read the abstract?

            Read the paper. You can’t “refute” it without actually reading it and understanding it.

          • david russell

            I have refuted it….no correlation, thus no causation. You’re a smart guy. Open the link and see for yourself.

          • rightyone

            The data shows there is correlation. Hence you have not refuted anything.

            How long will it take you to understand that I am unable to see the post that you are claiming contains a link?

          • david russell

            I can’t help you then. We’re done, as neither of us can post links. One last idea: click on my name and find the “PENDING’ item in my DISQUS log, which is public.

          • rightyone

            Are you mentally challenged?

            If the post is PENDING, then there is no way for me to click on it because it does not appear for anyone else but you in your log.

            How is that so difficult for you to understand?

            Here is a plot showing the correlation between CO2 and temperature. It proves that they are correlated.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc23d135fec3cbcdf6080125c20acc93e58c59a9f920f0a72f5857951afea2f6.jpg

          • david russell

            You’re not as smart as I thought. I said click on my name and go into my disqus log.

          • rightyone

            Yes David, that’s what I did. What don’t you understand about the fact that other commenters like me cannot see your comments that are PENDING.

            Read that again SLOWLY if you still don’t get it.

          • david russell

            There’s another problem with Barnett’s thesis: ARGO reports up to 98% of increased OHC of the last several years has been going into the 2/3rd of the world’s oceans in the Southern Hemisphere. Not very likely that the well-mixed CO2 in the air can explain that.

          • rightyone

            It’s only a problem for someone like you. You do realize that ocean currents transport heat throughout the globe right?

            Where is your peer-reviewed scientific paper supporting your claim?

          • david russell

            Apparently you are wrong …. Or ARGO is. Anyway it’s the heat from surface insolation that warms the mixed layer and ocean currents take it from THERE.

          • rightyone

            I’m wrong about what? That ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 are correlated as can be confirmed by anyone that can run a regression, or that ocean currents transport heat?

            Which of those statements is wrong?

            Solar insolation cannot sustain the present ocean temperatures without backradiation.

          • david russell

            Three strikes is all you get. You are”outta here,”. Casey. There is no joy in Mudville.

          • rightyone

            What on earth are you talking about?

          • david russell

            ARGO reports the data. No need for a paper.

          • rightyone

            There is a need for you to understand the science, which you clearly don’t.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Volcanoes not melting:

            However, Loose cautions, this does not imply that volcanism is the major source of mass loss from Pine Island. On the contrary, “there are several decades of research documenting the heat from ocean currents is destabilizing Pine Island Glacier, which in turn appears to be related to a change in the climatological winds around Antarctica,” Loose said. Instead, this evidence of volcanism is a new factor to consider when monitoring the stability of the ice sheet.

            The scientists report in the paper that “helium isotope and noble gas measurements provide geochemical evidence of sub-glacial meltwater production that is subsequently transported to the cavity of the Pine Island Ice Shelf.” They say that heat energy released by the volcanoes and hydrothermal vents suggests that the heat source beneath Pine Island is about 25 times greater than the bulk of heat flux from an individual dormant volcano.

            Professor Karen Heywood, from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, the United Kingdom, and chief scientist for the expedition, said: “The discovery of volcanoes beneath the Antarctic ice sheet means that there is an additional source of heat to melt the ice, lubricate its passage toward the sea, and add to the melting from warm ocean waters. It will be important to include this in our efforts to estimate whether the Antarctic ice sheet might become unstable and further increase sea level rise.”

            Does that mean that global climate change is not a factor in the stability of the Pine Island Glacier?

            No, said Loose. “Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet.”

            He said other studies have shown that melting caused by climate change is reducing the size and weight of the glacier, which reduces the pressure on the mantle, allowing greater heat from the volcanic source to escape and then warm the ocean water.

            https://phys org/news/2018-06-volcanic-source-major-antarctic-glacier.html#jCp

          • david russell

            There are 91 active volcanoes under the Antarctic Peninsula. Pine Island is an island… one of many in the Antarctic peninsula.

            Volcanic activity is not the only reason for West Antarctica melt. It’s just one reason. Like I said.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            You are refuted.

          • david russell

            Now your just being grumpy.

          • Popcorn Joe

            Pathological liars do not realize they are lying… David Russell really does believe he never lies… Maybe?

          • david russell

            “Pathological liars do not realize they are lying..” Is this your opinion? It’s rather a contradiction, isn’t it? In order to lie there must be intent to deceive. But if you don’t know you’re lying, where’s the intent?

            What you could say without fear of contradiction is that people make false statements that they don’t realize are false. But of course that’s not lying. Perhaps they’re misinformed. Perhaps they’re joking. Perhaps they’re actors in a play.

            You never win, Joe.

          • Popcorn Joe

            You are wrong again David Russell…. People who are insane and are pathological liars do not have an intent to lie, they just automatically lie as soon as they decide to argue a point because they never lie… Like you never lie.

          • david russell

            Lying without intent to deceive is a contradiction.

          • Popcorn Joe

            Oh they intend to deceive, like you do, but you cannot help yourself David, you are a pathological liar and not sane. Gheeze, get help.

          • david russell

            I thought I told you to sit at the kiddie table and let the big boys do the thinking. Sit down and shut up.

          • Popcorn Joe

            Come make me shut up Russell… I’d love it.

          • david russell

            Maybe it’s better for me to just let you embarrass your self sharing your ignorant knowledge with the group. Then I can make fun of you some more.

          • CB

            “Pathological liars do not realize they are lying… David Russell really does believe he never lies… Maybe?”

            I think that’s an excellent way to put it!

            David’s m.o. is likely not to sell more fossil fuel, but rather to get someone, anyone to pay attention to him, and he will make any claim in the desperate pursuit of this goal.

            Truth to him is completely irrelevant.

            I think more and more people are coming to realise this is what drives most of the “conservative” commentary out there, up to and including the “president” himself!

            …and the solution is to ignore them. They are a pointless, useless, waste of time.

        • Derpitudinous_Neologism

          What warms the oceans? Answer: surface insolation. All other surface thermal processes cool the oceans.

          The warming planet also creates less of a potential difference, slowing the rate of heat release from the ocean to the atmosphere.

          • david russell

            Nice story. Any peer-reviewed science to support that or is that just your view?

            I’ve looked. I can’t find any actual science (you know, with measurements for example) on this matter. Perhaps you have. If so, point it out.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            I’ll see if I can see a high school textbook on Amazon that lets me look at the page.

            You could look yourself as well and maybe both of us working together we’ll find it on-line for everyone to see.

          • david russell

            In other words, “No. There is no peer-reviewed science that claims much less quantifies your point.”

            I’ve already looked. It’s up to you now.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            In other words,

            Wow. That’s a weak play.

            Purposely and weakly mischaracterizing what I stated – in a forum with scrolling text so anyone can check for themselves!

            Do you know you are a fool?

          • david russell

            I know that you made a scientific claim which as it turns out you can’t support with any peer-reviewed (or text-book) science.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            I made no scientific claim. I made a comment on a blog about ocean-atmosphere interactions.

            You’re trying too hard. It shows.

          • david russell

            You did make a comment about ocean atmosphere interactions, one without any peer-reviewed scientific support…. in other words, a story with no quantification.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Thanks for walking that back. I told you that I’d look on Amazon for a textbook on the basics, and if there was a preview page I’d include it for you so you could learn basic stuff. When I get a chance I’ll look for it. If you don’t like it, tough sh++.

          • david russell

            I walked nothing back. You won’t be able to find anything. I’ve tried. Your thesis (or the one you are passing on here) is that conductive cooling of the oceans is in part a matter of the difference in temperature at the ocean/air interface. That’s what you might call the ‘basic science.’ But as Judith Curry has said, “In theory all objects near the earth’s surface fall at the same rate, but in reality my feather flies up into a tree.” This basic science is insufficient. It lack quantification (measurement). It’s just a story absent measurement.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Now you look really foolish.

            Are you doing this on purpose so someone will pay attention to you? Why not simply conduct yourself in an interesting manner instead?

          • david russell

            I make perfectly logical and correct statements and you call that foolish.

            That’s a totally vacuous comment on your part.

            Let me see if I can help:

            1) Am I not correct in my characterization of your point about “the basic science?” Oh, I’m 100% spot on. Not actually foolish there, then

            2) Am I not correct that there are no peer-reviewed papers (ones with actual measurements) that quantify the amount of ocean warming from reduced conductive cooling? Oh. You haven’t produced any and I can’t find any. So nothing foolish there.

            3) Are you suggesting that we have any justification to conclude ‘from the basic science’ that the oceans are warming from reduced conductive cooling, absent any actual measurement? Apparently. Well, that makes you look foolish in my book.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            I already refuted you.

            Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

          • david russell

            You haven’t refuted anything. You merely called me foolish without argumentation nor example.

            This always happens. I show people the error of their ways and they get hostile. But I motor on because I’m educating the rest of the group.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            You lack talent to hide the fact you’ve been refuted twice in this thread.

          • david russell

            I’m limited to what you say, not privy to what you imagine you did.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            I already demonstrated this for everyone downthread.

            Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

          • david russell

            This is just mindless blather on your part. But everyone else sees that. I’ve obliterated you on every point. You’ve devolved into name calling and bombast.

          • david russell

            Liar.

          • david russell

            I just posted a link to the best work I could find, which has gotten bounced into “PENDING”. So here’s the conclusion in full:

            BOTTOM LINE ON OCEAN TEMPERATURE DATA FOR THE DEPTHS OF 0-700 METERS

            Subsurface temperature data (and ocean heat content data) for the North Atlantic, the Extratropical North Pacific and the Tropical Pacific all indicate that naturally occurring coupled ocean-atmosphere processes are the primary causes of ocean warming to depth, not manmade greenhouse gases. In fact, the data for the tropical Pacific and extratropical North Pacific show those oceans can cool for decadal and multidecadal periods between short-term naturally caused warming episodes. Those decadal and multidecadal cooling periods further suggest that manmade greenhouse gases have no measureable impact on ocean warming to depth.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            (comment sent to jail because contained a hyperlink)

            Looks like something you found on a disinformation blog.

            While I was looking for which disinformation blog duped you with that text, I found this gem at a particular disinformation blog (no link, I don’t give clicks to disinformation sites):

            So how do greenhouse gases accomplish this ocean heating? This is discussed in this SkS post, but briefly; greenhouse gases radiate heat (longwave radiation) back toward the surface and, although they cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, they warm the uppermost surface of the thin cool-skin layer. The thermal gradient through this layer dictates the rate of heat loss from the (typically) warmer ocean surface, to the cooler atmosphere above. When greenhouse gases increase, more longwave radiation is directed back at the ocean surface, which warms the cool-skin layer, lowers the thermal gradient, and consequently reduces the rate of heat loss. The sum effect is that the oceans trap more of the sun’s energy and therefore warm over time. [emphasis mine]

            Looks like something you’d see in a high school text. Surely you made it through high school, yes?

          • david russell

            I’m aware of that discussion. It concerns the Tangeroa expedition. It was not peer-reviewed science. It has never been replicated. But in any event taking it at face value it would explain 1% of ocean warming to date from 20 years ago.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Thou doth protest too much, methinks.

          • david russell

            No. I just proved that I know more about this than you do.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            You’re a time-wasting, gibbering fool.

            You’re dismissed.

          • david russell

            Ouch. The infinitesimal Derpie has a nasty bite.

          • david russell

            Now it is you who are lying. But it’s a weak lie in that no one believes it, not even you.

      • OWilson

        “You have admitted to selling fossil fuel, which is changing the climate.

        Why should anyone believe you when you make claims about the changing of the climate?”

        Say what?

        For every seller of fossil fuel, there are millions of consumers who BUY fossil fuel (and their products). They are all around your household, and you are using one as we speak! :)

        Your high priests of global warming, politicians, climatologists, Hollywood celebs, buy it in bulk for their yachts, private jets and fleets of automobiles.

        Should we believe them?

        Think about that the next time you tell your friendly neighborhood gas attendant to “fill her up!”, or purchase your latest Iphone.

        You are at least as complicit as she is! :)

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+