My tunnel idea prevents this also by regulating SSTs in the Gulfstream which control the Barents sea temps. Rising surface temperatures drive back winter ice in Barents Sea.The Tunnels restore the Arctic ice in this manner.

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/07091801.htm

From: Stackgenerator
To: curryja@eas.gatech.edu
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 12:14 AM
Subject: TUNNELS REVERSE GLOBAL WARMING AND WEAKEN HURRICANES PRIOR TO LANDFALL!

Judith,
I have this theory I have thought about for years now! I need someone to computer model it! Frank Marks at HRD says I need to get it modeled along with Michael Oppenheimer and many other scientists! HRD says they can't model it because they are not funded for it! The Idea involves mixing ocean waters in the Gulfstream using Pascal and Bernoulli principles! The Idea can regulate SSTs anywhere from 72 degrees on up to 90+ degrees if needed! The tunnels basically upwell cooler waters to the surface like a Scoop as Hugh Willoughby once told me long ago! Flow occurs because of the pressure differential between the two openings.Basically, the inlet which I call F1 is > F2 at the tunnel outlet! Pascal says any pressure differential within an enclosed system where energy is conserved a flow will occur! Therefore, Pascal's law can be interpreted as saying that any change in pressure applied at any given point of the fluid is transmitted undiminished throughout the fluid including against the walls. F1 at depth opposes the flow of the gulfstream while F2 near the surface is faced away from the gulfstream causing this pressure differential! I call this the cooling stage of the tunnels as this will mix the warm surface waters with the cool water exiting the tunnel thus cooling them prior to a hurricanes landfall. Only if a storm is forecast to hit our coastlines will this stage be used to weaken the storm! During cooling stage the tunnels remove 26 trillion BTUs from the SSTs per/day. This now cooler layer of water flows at the rate of 120 miles per day to the North in the gulfstream. In just three days the whole East Coast, GOM states, and Mexico can be offered protection from any hurricane that may hit them! There are three tunnel locations one in the Yucatan Channel, near Key West and just offshore in St. Lucie Fla.! They cover the width of the Gulfstream and Yucatan Current. I keep getting emails like this:


From: Michael Oppenheimer [mailtomichael@Princeton.EDU]
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:40 AM
To: Pat McNulty
Subject: RE: Bernoulli's equation used to modify hurricanes and tornado's

Sounds plausible. Questions I would ask include the cost of construction, cost of maintaining the system, side effects to the local marine environment. Whether it actually would work ought to be tested with some modeling. You could contact Kerry Emanuel at MIT to see what he thinks of the possibility of modeling it to see if it actually works as envisioned.

From: Kerry Emanuel [mailto:@texmex.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:26 AM
To: Pat McNulty
Subject: RE: Pascal's and Bernoulli's principle weakens hurricanes

Pat: I have not had time to run calculations on your idea, but I do
not see an obvious reason why it might not work. The technical issue
would be with the volume of water required. Since you are effectively
mixing heat in ocean columns, you would be warming water at depth in
proportion to the surface cooling, and one should explore the
consequences of this.

As you may imagine, this past season's storms have renewed interest
in hurricane modification and quite a few proposals are being
fielded. I am working with some other faculty at MIT to initiate a
funding program for such proposals as yours; if we succeed I will let
you know and there would then be a mechanism for you to get funding
to work on this.

Yours, Kerry

From: willough@fiu.edu [mailto:willough@fiu.edu]
>Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 6:13 PM
>To: Pat McNulty
>Subject: Re: Scoops( Under water Tunnels)
>Hugh,
>I bet those tunnels are cost effective now???? ANY THOUGHTS?

As I wrote earlier, the loop current is hundreds of kilometers across and its position varies greatly from year to year. What makes the scoops not completely nuts as a proposal is the narrowness and fixed position of the Gulf Stream in the Straits and off Florida's SE coast. In terms of climatology, Greater Miami is the most vulnerable major city in the US. Only Miami has the configuration of a deep "western boundary" current directly offshore. Thus this scheme, if it proves feasible, would work only for Miami and only for Andrew-like storms. The city would remain vulnerable to late season storms, which approach from the SW, like WILMA


hew


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Frank Marks" Frank.Marks@noaa.gov
> To: "Stackgenerator" stackgenerator@cableone.net
> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 2:19 PM
> Subject: Re: TUNNEL IDEA??
>
>
> > Unfortunately there is a dearth of models capable of testing
> such a
> > hypothesis. The operational models are coupled to the ocean in
> a 1-D
> > sense eliminating any advection in the ocean. Research models
> are coming
> > along that could be used to look at 3-D interactions, but they
> are so
> > new I am not sure that you could be sure the results was caused
> by the
> > changes you induce or by other issues the new models have not been
> > tested for yet. The big challenge is the ocean modeling (there
> are some
> > good research ocean models, but the issue of forcing in a
> hurricane > environment is not completely understood yet - spray,
> wave breaking,
> > etc), and then the coupling of it to the atmosphere to get the
> > appropriate feedback. We are working on that for the next
> generation > operational models, but it still a work in progress.
> I think in a few
> > years we may have such a tool ready to test your idea in a
> credible
> > manner.

Whew! Were are almost there!

There are two stages for this idea, the one above prior to the emails is just 1/2 the story of the Tunnels! During both stages of operation I have designed them to produce electrical power through a venturi section of the tunnel near the discharge end. All totaled up I have calculated they produce 23 trillion joules of electrical power per /hour during both stages of operation! When not in cooling stage, which is only about 6 % of the time the flow is shunted or bypassed back to the surface where the warm surface water flows through the Tunnels and no cooling occurs!

I know it may sound complex but I hope you can see what I am trying to do with the Tunnels! I think they are the answer to the problem we face with the fossil fuels and Global Warming. Trust me I know it exists I was a control room operator for FPL at the Cutler Ridge Power plant for over 20 years and I am presently in the control room at the Anniston Army Depot in Alabama destroying this countries chemical stockpile of weapons of mass destruction! This is just an idea I came up with when hurricane Andrew rocked my world. It took about five years of thinking everyday. If you have any questions please feel free to get back with me! I also have a blog up about them at Jeff Masters Weatherunderground. If you would like to comment feel free, you are not intruding! Right now I am just having fun with it and kid around a lot. But trust me they are based on sound scientific principle!

My name is Cyclonebuster!

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/cyclonebuster/show.html

Yours truly,
Patrick McNulty

Here is a link to sea surface temperature anomalies.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly.html

It can be stopped on the most current view which is Sept 26.

Fairly obvious to everyone except the politicals that there are large pools of warm water in the Western Arctic, North Pacific, North Atlantic, South pacific, mid Atlantic and South Atlantic. Greenhouse gases are of course responsible.

To be fair, there is a large pool of cool water west of South America, that is referred to as la nina, which is only a temporary situation not expect to last for more than a year and not enough to keep 2007 out of the top 10 warmest years. Also, a large pool of cooling in South Indian.

The la nina is the only reason why 2007 will probably not be the warmest year globally. 2008 or 2009 will likely surpass 2005.

Top 20 warmest years in order on record according to the NCDC are as follows. Heres a link too.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

2005
2002
1998
2003
2006
2001
2004
1999
1995
1997
1990
2000
1988
1981
1991
1994
1938
1983
1944
1996

Notice that 1938 and 1944 are down around the bottom of the top 20. Very likely 2007 and next 3 years will displace them.

Does anybody see a trend?

Brett,

I'm just curious - where do those temperatures come from? Is this from a satellite analysis or from direct temperature measurements? (I assume it's from the satellites.) If it's from satellite analysis, is it really the air temperature at the surface, or is it the sea surface temperature? Reply: air temperature at the surface. Brett.

Back to Tom's comment.....(...which necessarily can't be much below 0C if the area is ice-free.) There can, of course, be a quite substantial difference between the sea surface temperature and the air temperature above the water.

Tom

Reply: they are not direct air emperature measurements, just not enough data out of there. The model uses satellite data for its initialization of the surface air temps. The accuracy is probably not anything special, but in this case I am not focused on the actual temps, but pocket of milder air in that region compared to the areas over Siberia, the north pole region and the northern Islands of Canada. That's all.

Is it possible that underwater volcanic activity (if occurring) in this area could influence water temps?. Another possibility high salinity? just some ideas (apart from AGW theory)

Reply: I guess that is possible, but what I am showing is surface air temperature

Brett,

that map is pretty good at showing where the 27 year average sea ice extent is but do you know of any other maps that can show how much thickness the ice cap has lost/gained as well? If not, does anyone? I would really like to sea that. Thanks.

Reply: In terms of thickness loss, I have not seen that, but I am sure one of our regular commentators can steer you in the right direction.

Barrow, Alaska had close to normal June temperatures. Then the ice melted away in July, and temperatures rose above normal and remained that way through most of September.

So the questions is, do warm temperatures lead or lag the melting? If you believe the warming is due to CO2, then it would make sense that warmer temperatures melted the ice. However, if you believe that dirty ice caused the snow to melt, then dirty melting ice led to warmer ground and air temperatures.

I find the latter theory much more palatable, because the warming and ice melt only affected the part of the Arctic closest to sources of soot. As Brett's map shows, the other side of the arctic is quite cold. Look how quickly ice is accumulating in the Greenland Sea.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

The Siberia side of the Arctic is still relatively warm and no ice is accumulating yet.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html

It is not surprising that some parts of the Arctic saw very warm temperatures this summer. 24 hours of sun and no ice or snow to cool things down. Not surprising that temperatures got up into the 50's and 60's.

Instead of knee-jerk blaming CO2, it might make sense to understand why half the Arctic and most of Antarctica is behaving differently.

Did anybody catch my earlier error?

Probably not, but it goes to show the importance of peer checking. Ocassionally, everyone makes mistakes and I will freely admit when I do.

Anyhow, my earlier list of the 20 hottest years was based on global land values. Including land and ocean in the global average changes things slighty.

Here is the global land and ocean top 20.

2005
1998
2002
2003
2006
2004
2001
1997
1999
1995
1990
2000
1991
1988
1994
1987
1996
1981
1983
1944

A few differance. For instance notice, that 1938 is not even on the list. 1944 still is, but 2007 is on track to bump it off.

There were 3 La Nina years in the 1970's.
Also, can anybody spot the La Nina years in the top 20 list?

-------------------------------------------------

Next topic. Warmest Decades.

The politicals like to squawk a lot about how cool the 70's were. It is probably because they lived way back then, because it was actually one of the warmer decades.

Here the rankings in order. The current decade is not over yet, but it is on track to be the warmest.

1990s
1980s
1940s
1970s
1960s
1930s
1950s
1920s
1880s
1890s
1900s
1910s

Pretty impressive to see how warm the 70s were despite 3 La Nina years.

BTW, the 1950s had 2 La Nina years while the 1940s had none.

Bottom line, La Nina is cool but it is being overwhelmed by CO2 warming.

Interesting explanation of Arctic ice loss from NASA.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

"The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century," Nghiem said.

Andrew;
20 warmist years in recent times is consistant with a steady gradual and natural warming.
What is your point.
Also, those numbers have not been audited yet.
They are therefore only as reliable and Hansen's fudged numbers that change regularily. We should hold off makeing proclaimations until the numbers have been verified.
Not everting is caused by man made CO2. Althouth, the MSM would certainly make it seem so.
Check this out, it is seriously funny. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

do you know of any other maps that can show how much thickness the ice cap has lost/gained as well? If not, does anyone? I would really like to sea that. Thanks.

Darren M,

The best thing I could find was on the NSIDC site's news page here:

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20070810_index.html

If you scroll down about 2/3 of the way to the bottom, there's the August 22nd update. On the left-hand side near the bottom of that post is an animation of yearly multi-year ice movements from 1982 through 2007, including the monthly fluctuations in ice extent.

It does not deal directly with thickness, but instead involves the change in amounts of multi-year ice. It differentiates between ice that is 1 year old (dark blue), 2 years, 3 years(green), 4 years, and 5+ years(red). This is a reasonably accurate representation of sea ice thickness from year to year since the oldest ice also tends to be the thickest ice.

This animation allows you to see how the old ice changes in position and in amount over the course of 25 years. It also does a good job of illustrating the Arctic's two main currents: the Beaufort Gyre north of Alaska and along the Canadian Archipelago (a clockwise current) and the Transpolar Drift current that runs from the Laptev Sea above Russia in a direct line toward the north end of Greenland. A discussion of the animation can be found in the text to its right.

Hope this helps.

Patrick H,

Or you could argue that an influx of warmer water contributed to the ice melt. Notice the pattern of the temperature gradient in Brett's map: it necks through the Bering Strait, then stretches east in the direction of the Beaufort Gyre. As it so happens, the air temperature in this region correlates very well with current SSTs in the region:

http://www.wunderground.com/MAR/

As you can see, the SST gradient follows the same pattern as the surface air temperatures all the way from south of the Bering Strait into the Arctic.

Also, you might refer to the multi-year ice animation I linked to in a response to Darren M. The animation shows that multi-year ice has been receding from the eastern Siberian coast for a very long time--since 1989. The fact that sea ice there is non-existent this year is the culmination of a long-term trend in that region. (The animation also shows how it is not unusual for large amounts of ice to be pushed into the Greenland Sea--accounting for the recent sudden rise in sea-ice in that basin).

I'm sure soot has played some role in the decrease, but despite the one piece of evidence you invariably use to support your claim, I doubt soot is the primary driver of sea ice loss in the western Arctic.

Cooling anomalies in SH seem to be starting to creep into NH (goes back 2 months nooa linked data see below). Coming winter in NH and next summer could be be very interesting re sea temps: very low continuous solar activity may be kicking in? Also very interesting antarctic activity when viewed in 30 day jpegs at CT... one wonders if the energy is not transferred to cooling the seas and linked to La Nina? By the way... speculation and possibly nonsense... but if climate change is viewed in its proper time frame (100's 1000's years?), none of the observed changes are probably significant

Linked data from noaa sea surface temps:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.10.1.2007.gif

Andrew: Greenhouse gases are of course responsible.

Prove it. Not even your Gods at the IPCC claim that. Most scientific studies find other causes than rising CO2 levels, get over it.

Seems like the thing to do is put that part of the Arctic under the microscope and find out exactly what is going on. Is it volcanic activity or is it the soot from Siberia? Obviously if it is volcanic activity it is just a naturally occuring cycle. However if it is soot that is causing this it is something that can be controlled and stopped. I am sure Russia really doesn't care too much if it is soot as they probably are all for warming as much as possible over there. Maybe we can send Barbara Boxer over there where the problem seems to be concentrated.

Andrew-

If you look carefully 1938 should be on your top 20 list. .2459 is its stated annomaly while years that you moved up such as '83 and '96 both are lower than that. I highly recommend you look back over the numbers and organize them properly.
Regards, Elliot

Brett,

In a reply to Tom Pollard above, you state Reply: air temperature at the surface. (...which necessarily can't be much below 0C if the area is ice-free.)

I was under the impression that sea ice froze at about 28 deg F (-2.22 deg C) due to the salt content of the sea water. So, theoretically, the air temperature above the open water could be below 0 deg C by at least 2 deg and still have open water. Just nitpicking.

Reply: Paul, my only words were air temperature at the surface. The rest of that is from tom's comment. I should have separated it out so it did not sound like I said that. Of course, the air temperature can be well below 0 c over open water. Sorry about the confusion

Andrew-
You say those are the sea surface annomalies yet you pulled up the land data, and not the ocean surface data from their site. I could be mistaken, but the actual sea surface data appears to give a reasonably similar picture but the decades in the thirties and forties are warm similarly to the the last two decades and several years in those periods crack the top 20 list solidly. Either way please explain why you used the land data.
Regards, Elliot

I graphed the data from the ocean temp annomalies per the mean from 1880-2006. I found a few curiosities. First the cooling of the ocean from 1880 to around 1915 matched the warming from the early 70's to now. Both went from a yearly mean annomaly of 0 to around +/- .4 in around 40 years. So looking at this data as an observer around 1910 it would be a sure sign of catastrophic ocean cooling. We also know that new york harbor used to freeze during the awful winters of the early 1800's. Prior to that though by several hundred years the viking's had little problem farming corn among other crops on the far reaches of Greenland, in areas where now there is only ice. I don't think a graph that exhibits two similar trends, one cooling and one warming can be indicative of a long term trend especially when the data set is only around a hundred years. I don't know what happens when you plot the land temps that Andrew posted earlier, but the plot I made used the mean ocean annomaly from 1880-2006.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Andrew-
I failed to read your second post's heading and assumed that it was still using only land values. My apologies on the post pertaining to why you chose land instead of ocean. Regardless I plotted those as well and a similar pair of trends was observed, though with land and sea values they were both slightly sharper. I'll be more careful to read fully, before I comment.

Sorry, Elliot