Here's what I said:

"The co2 global warming theorists have been saying that it's perfectly possible for natural variation to cause a cessation of global warming for a decade...we need to reconsider the reasons why the co2 theorists say the Sun can't be the main driver of the recent warming.""

and here's what Dan said I said:

"Within 3 sentences you claim the CO2 theorists say the sun cycles can be a driving facter and then you say the CO2 people claim the cycles can't be a factor."

Enough said I think.

Dan says:
...the baloney about how solid rock lava fields in Italy are off-gasing significant amounts of CO2.

I think I'll take what qualified geologists have actually measured out in the field over your wishful thinking. Nothing personal.

Dan says:
I will upgrade my lifetime membership every year (pay $99.00 per year) from here on out. I'm betting you don't have the you know what to match that.

If laying down extra money makes you feel more justified about the cr@p you spout, then good for you. ;-)

"If laying down extra money makes you feel more justified about the cr@p you spout, then good for you. ;-)"

it certainly takes -0- deniro to find creditable opinion about the flexibility you exhibit... there are few characters in the scene that offer readily accessible comparison - but two are limbaugh & gore

kudos - been around enough critical thinkers to recognize a goose stepping POS of when I see one - let possibility/objectivity/complexity be the theme words that clue you in to being remotely monkey-like... somewhere near the same level of other apes that wanna' lug less weight on their GD backs

you're going to be fun

Rog, if you are going to quote yourself, why don't you quote yourself accurately?

And, Why doesn't NATURAL VARIATION include variation in solar output?

The last decade was the hottest decade ever including a record setting minimum Arctic ice extent (which is already happening again this year - including a record for minimum ice volume. Your side always says that because the decade did not show ever increasing heat, that things were not heating up. The whole point of showing natural variation is to show the the solar minimum and things like ocean sequestration of CO2 and extra heat really could cause an Apparent Flatline of the increasing heat. Now that we are going into a more active solar phase, the masking by natural variation will diminish since the sun is one of those masking variables that will go away.

This last decade will be the last decade where natural variation in the system will mask what is going on and people like you will no longer be able to make your claims. Already this year people are saying we've gone beyond the point that rhetoric can hide climate change.

I keep wondering how many people here realize you are the guy in the UK that the hacked East Anglia emails were sent to for distribution and distortion.

Edited by wildlife on 08/05/2012 19:44:10 MDT.

Natural variation does include variation in solar output... BUT: There is an important difference between variation in an external climate driver which can add energy to the system and internal variation which shifts energy from one part of the climate system to another but conserves energy overall.

Which brings us to Kevin Trenberth's hunt for 'the missing heat' :-)

You said: " things like ocean sequestration of CO2 and extra heat really could cause an Apparent Flatline of the increasing heat."

Well, airborne co2 levels are still steadily increasing in a fairly linear way as they have for the last five decades (unlike human emissions which have risen exponentially), so "ocean sequestration of co2" doesn't explain the "Apparent Flatline of the increasing heat."

So we're left with your and Kevin's idea that the ocean has sequestered "the extra heat" that the elevated co2 has generated according to the co2 driven climate theory.

The problem is this heat is nowhere to be found. The ARGO network of diving measurement buoys showed a slight fall in the temperature of the upper 700m of ocean from 2004-2010. Or at least it did until the data was 'revised' earlier this year.

So Kevin decided the heat must be deeper down in the ocean and after much torturing of the data, a tiny positive trend was announced in the 700-2000m region. No explanation is forthcoming for how the laws of thermodynamics were suspended while the 'missing heat' moved from the surface through 700m of cooling upper ocean however.

The other side of the equation in Earth's heat balance from the heat arriving from the Sun, is the rate at which it is transmitted back to space, and when the earlier ARGO data was compared to the outgoing energy as measured by satellites by my colleague Peter Berenyi, we found that the Earth's energy balance had actually slipped into negative territory around 2005.

The 'missing heat' is somewhere past Alpha Centauri by now.

But the surface temperature is still being maintained by the oceanic release of the solar energy sequestered in the ocean by 70 years of above average solar activity up to 2004. Our current tentative estimate of how long this will continue to keep things peachy here on the surface is that we should be OK for a couple more years. From 2014, things will get colder.

If you think I'm wrong and want to put more of your money where your mouth is, I'll take you on on the same terms as offered by the originator of this thread, Dean Fellabaum. Dean and I have a $1000 dollar bet running on the trend slope of the global average surface temperature between 2005 and 2020 as measured by the median of the UAH/RSS satellite and surface station GISS/HADcru indices. He says it will be positive, I say it will be negative.

Here's how it's looking at the moment:

.

Time will tell.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/06/2012 00:45:48 MDT.

Rog, what are the odds a true endogenous outlier skews the heck out of that median? Like, say, one year a super-sized solar flare consumes the earth and spikes the surface temperature into the thousands of degrees celsius, or something; that'd really mess up the median of the data, wouldn't it?

Boy, I'd hate to be out $1000 just because a solar flare consumed the earth.

-Dan

Rog, to claim the ocean is only absorbing CO2 but not heat generated by CO2 is off the mark. And then to say you can find the heat in the ocean from 70 years of extra solar activity, but not the heat trapped by extra greehouse gases, is a little silly. For years and years you guys have been claiming that there is no way to tell the diffence between greenhouse trapping of heat and 'Natural' variation of climate type increases in heat. Now suddendly you are drawing a sharp line between the two. You can't find the missing heat from the CO2 but you can find 70 years of direct solar heat. That's absurd.

Also, if Earth's energy balance had actually slipped into negative territory around 2005 we would not be well on the way to shattering the minimum Arctic ice extent and volumes records this year. This is indicative of an increasing thermal mass.

Oh, and where did all your heat go from your hundred fold increase in volcanic activity that 'normal' scientists missed - all of that extra volcanic activity that has been causing the heating? Did your 'team' and 'colleagues' suddenly turn the switch off on that? I think it's easy to see why your team can't find things.

Here's some interesting video of a storm that shut down a festival in Belgium last year;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drSt76O_Kyw

Ironically, the same exact thing just happened again THIS year. Videos are all over the place. Sounds like weather forecasting is pretty up in the air, or is it down in that warming sea, with the Gulf Stream pushing farther north into the Arctic?

Here's a good link for others here showing a bit of what is going on;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120626065007.htm


Hey Rog, I just noticed the MLife next to my name. Maybe me and Dean should open a bet about when you are gonna send BPL some money.

Edited by wildlife on 08/06/2012 14:32:50 MDT.

Hi Daniel,

The last big flare which hit Earth caused some extensive damage to power distribution systems in Canada. The big daddy of flares was the Carrington event in 1859.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

That one welded the contacts together on telegraphers morse code keys.and melted the undersea cable between the States and the UK. The same flare today would take out a lot of computerized systems and power lines if they weren't isolated in time. We get a couple of days warning though.

These events don't do much to directly heat the Earth but a week later the cloud amount drops and the oceans receive more solar input, such as happened in March this year. It is thought this is caused by the flare chasing the interplanetary space around Earth clear of cosmic rays, which have been shown in experiments at CERN in Switzerland to help form cloud condensation nuclei when they penetrate into the atmosphere.

I'd hate to be out $1000 just because a solar flare consumed the earth.

Don't worry, it looks like Dan doesn't believe in what he's saying strongly enough to put up anyway.

Dan says:
Rog, to claim the ocean is only absorbing CO2 but not heat generated by CO2 is off the mark. And then to say you can find the heat in the ocean from 70 years of extra solar activity, but not the heat trapped by extra greehouse gases, is a little silly.

Dan, short wave solar radiation penetrates up to 300 feet into the water and transfers its energy to the bulk of the ocean. Longwave radiation from water vapour and co2 doesn't penetrate into the ocean surface much beyond its own wavelenth - about 7 nanometres. This means it mostly contributes to evaporation, which via the latent heat of vapouraisation cools the ocean surface.

The longwave may not penetrate much but it does not escape through the atmosphere as readily as it once did either. This extra blanket over the ocean 'insulates' the ocean and keeps the thermal radiation of shortwave from escaping through the atmosphere as readily as it did prior to CO2 buildup. That is where the warming comes from. The same thing happens over arid regions at night. In general, through the process the air ends up warmer, the ocean ends up warmer, the rain ends up warmer,........we end up with a net increase in heat from what there was not that long ago. The cooling of the ocean you did mention does not cool the 'system'. So, that is not a true ocean cooling as it sounds like you are trying to make it - in the sense that that by itself will cool the oceans or keep them cool. That only happens when heat actually escapes the atmosphere, which is does of course, just not as much as it once did.

( In my previous post I mentioned 'heat generated by CO2'. That's a poor choice of words. I meant the extra heat that is there because of the presence of extra CO2. The extra CO2 itself does not generate heat of course, but it's presence allows heat to stay around longer. I added this here instead of editing the other post. )

Rog said, "Don't worry, it looks like Dan doesn't believe in what he's saying strongly enough to put up anyway."
What are you talking about Rog? What do you see that makes it look like I don't believe what I'm saying?

I don't think I have to bet on something to show I believe in it. I do believe that if a person is going to use a resource such as this website that they should at least pay the minimum amounts listed to sign up to be a member.

Rog said, "If you think I'm wrong and want to put more of your money where your mouth is, I'll take you on on the same terms as offered by the originator of this thread, Dean Fellabaum. Dean and I have a $1000 dollar bet running on the trend slope of the global average surface temperature between 2005 and 2020 as measured by the median of the UAH/RSS satellite and surface station GISS/HADcru indices. He says it will be positive, I say it will be negative."

I'm not so sure a Global Average surface temp make sense when applied to Climate Change. In climate change there is a disruption of Climate. Feedback mechanisms already try to balance highs and lows and in doing that there is great destruction of human built infrastructure. It can be very hot in one place and wery cold and wet in another - both extremes causing massive $$ damage like we are seeing now. Averaging out temperatures and talking about that can actually make the destruction of property seem nil and non-existent on paper. I think it would be more important to compare how much grain we will be able to produce in 2020 compared to earlier years, or how much of world population is dying off due to starvation or how population growth declined due to food production drops. Using statistics regarding temperature averages somebody could be told there are no problems in the world.

Edited by wildlife on 08/07/2012 00:21:48 MDT.

Dan, there are a lot of errors and misconceptions in your description of 'the greenhouse effect'. The 'blanket' explanation is a fairy story made up to satisfy the gullible. If you study a textbook on the greenhouse effect written by one of the faithful, the way it is supposed to work is completely different to your summary.

In brief the exchange of radiation between atmosphere and surface is supposed to increase as the atmosphere becomes optically thicker, and this theoretically raises the 'effective altitude of emission' of energy to space. It is supposed that because the atmosphere at the increased height is colder, the surface has to warm in order to get the colder atmosphere at the new emission height to warm up and emit radiation to space fast enough for the Earth's new energy budget to be in balance.

There are several problems with this theory.

For one thing, for the theory to be true, the gap between the 'effective altitude of emission and the surface would have to be a vacuum for the physics to work. In fact it's full of air, in which convection processes dominate over radiation processes. To try to get around this problem, the theorists have attempted to create 'coupled models' which account for this. But in the model radiation and convection aren't actually 'coupled' in any real computational sense. It's a kludge.

For another thing, when the Sun went quiet in 2005, our satellites started gaining altitude because there was less drag on them from the atmosphere. NASA says this is because the outer part of the atmosphere the satellites are flying in shrank by around 30%. It is not known what effect this shrinking had on the layers of the atmosphere below. It looks like a strong possibility that the Sun's activity changes have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the notional 'effective altitude of emission' than co2 does.

To try to get a handle on this we are trying to measure the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. But the sensitivity of our instruments isn't good enough to measure this closer than around 5W/m^2. This error range is three times larger than the theoretical signal from increased co2.

The optical thickness of the atmosphere is an expression of it's albedo, the degree to which the atmosphere reflects sunlight back into space rather than allowing it through to the surface. But changes in albedo are more affected by changes in cloud amount than by changes in co2, and we don't have sufficiently accurate indices of cloud amount.

It may be that albedo is a function of other factors which determine surface temperature anyway, since cloud amount is affected by temperature, pressure and humidity. A strong clue that this possibility may be true is given by the planet Venus when compared to Earth. When you take into account the difference in distance from the Sun, it turns out that the temperature at a given pressure in the atmosphere is the same on both planets, leading to an identical lapse rate (the rate at which temperature changes with altitude) over most of the height of the two atmospheres. This is so despite the fact that Venus' atmosphere is 93 times heavier and nearly all co2 whereas in Earth's atmosphere, there is hardly any co2 (0.039%). This fact strongly indicates that it is atmospheric mass per unit area of surface, rather than atmospheric composition which is the primary determinant of surface temperature (288K on earth 735K on Venus).

I'd take your bleating about membership more seriously if you were moaning at the non-members on your side of the climate debate too. The more you try to bully me about it while not being even handed, the less likely I am to renew my membership.

Dan has edited his post while I was replying to it to add this:

I'm not so sure a Global Average surface temp make sense when applied to Climate Change. In climate change there is a disruption of Climate. Feedback mechanisms already try to balance highs and lows and in doing that there is great destruction of human built infrastructure.

Oh I see. so now, having lost the 'global warming argument' Dan is moving on to 'climate change' causing 'climate disruption'.

Dan, climates around the world have been in continual change throughout history, and extreme weather events have been recorded on clay tablets, parchment and papyrus since the dawn of writing thousands of years ago.

What has this got to do with human emission of co2?

It can be very hot in one place and wery cold and wet in another - both extremes causing massive $$ damage like we are seeing now.

If the $$ damage are getting more massive it's down to more houses being built in stupid places like flood plains, costs of repair or rebuilding rising due to inflated costs of materials & labor, more people being able to afford better insurance and clever money jugglers fleecing insurance companies to make bigger profits.

The incidence of landfall hurricanes and destructive large tornadoes in the US actually fell during the period of 'global warming'. The incidence of small tornadoes increased, but this is largely due to better detection and reporting.

Natural disasters and extreme weather events have always been with us. There is no reliable evidence that their incidence has increased. Nor is there any evidence that they have anything to do with co2 levels in the atmosphere, human emitted or otherwise.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/07/2012 04:37:24 MDT.

I think it is clear in my post that all I edited was at the end to point out why I am not interested in your bet with Dean. I have not lost anything; no bets or debates. I know you want it to be over but..........

As far as 'the height of emmission' increasing with global warming goes, I am not aware of the AGW side claiming that. In fact, it is the opposite. Because the added greenhouse gases trap the heat for longer than is historically 'normal' the outer atmosphere does not get as much longwave radiation heating so it shrinks. This has much to do with the changing Jet Stream and etc. I have a very good article I need to find about this that was written in 1999. If anyone thinks 1999 is ancient history, I think this was when planning started for the Mars Curiosity Rover.

Your attitude seems be becoming increasingly defensive Roger Tattersall. I would think that if you are so far and above all of us then you could take the pummeling more easily.

You are very good at creating false equivalencies - case in point other people that have contributed to this blog that are not members. They are not professional climate bloggers either. You are the only guy here that has a Climate Blog and you are the only person here that has an international Climate Change 'reputation'. You many times seem to miss the main point of things or don't even respond to most of what I say - an example being all that extra volcanic activity that you say mainstream scientists have missed that is really causing warming. I think you say the climate is going to be cooling or is cooling so I asked what happened to all that volcanic activity - no response from you (of course) - why is that?

I have linked the article I want to find in this thread so I will find it sometime later. In the meantime here is a short article that touches on quite a bit about longwave radiation not getting out enough and the cooling of the Stratosphere.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

Edited by wildlife on 08/07/2012 18:10:46 MDT.

Roger, I found this article at your website;

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/greenhouse-gases-cool-planets-volcanos-warm-them/#comments

In it you say this;

"But all this focussing on the short term of which the climate science mainstream seems so fond is blinkering us to the bigger picture. Volcanos add mass to the atmosphere. On geological timescales, they add a lot of mass to the atmosphere. And more mass means more surface pressure. More surface pressure means less evaporation from the oceans, and higher surface temperatures. Now to some extent, you might think, these two might offset each other........."

OK Rog, here's my question;

Now if it's adding mass to the atmosphere would that be in the gases it puts out or the ash that it puts out? I would imagine that you mean the gases since they would have the more permanent postion in the atmosphere to add mass to affect climate longer term. Surely it's the gases that you mean are adding the mass?

Dan tells us:
As far as 'the height of emmission(sic)' increasing with global warming goes, I am not aware of the AGW side claiming that. In fact, it is the opposite.

Get thee to a library Dan. Let's use a primary source. Here's a quote form IPCC AR3 section 1.3.1 Sir John Houghton. My parenthesis.

"The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere enhances the absorption and emission of infrared radiation. The atmosphere’s opacity increases so that the altitude from which the Earth’s radiation is effectively emitted into space becomes higher. Because the temperature is lower at higher altitudes, less energy is emitted (to space), causing a positive radiative forcing. This effect is called the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is discussed in detail in Chapter 6."

Except it isn't. Chapter 6 doesn't discuss it at all...

Dan says:
You are very good at creating false equivalencies - case in point other people that have contributed to this blog that are not members. They are not professional climate bloggers either. You are the only guy here that has a Climate Blog and you are the only person here that has an international Climate Change 'reputation'.

Check the date the Carbon flame war started Dan. Then check the date of the first post on my blog (read it too). I'm not sure what you mean by 'professional'. I study, write about and discuss science for fun and interest. I earn my living as a professional webmaster. Why should what folk do elsewhere on the internet have any bearing on why you selectively chastise some people for not renewing their membership of BPL but not others anyway??

Dan says:
all that extra volcanic activity that you say mainstream scientists have missed that is really causing warming. I think you say the climate is going to be cooling or is cooling so I asked what happened to all that volcanic activity - no response from you (of course) - why is that?

Mostly because you tend to mis-state and then misinterpret what I said, and I can't be bothered to correct you any more. If you want me to respond to something concerning what you say I said, provide the actual quote. However in this case I did answer you in the following comment, and you have ignored the answer. It was that sinks match sources, to within a few ppm of co2 per year. But since we weren't allowing for such a big extra component in the carbon cycle as the megatons of co2 from lava (not eruptions), the human emission component is a much smaller proportion of the carbon cycle than previously believed. This fact has implications for our calculations of the human contribution to increase in the level of airborne co2.

Edit to add that the answer to your question in your followup comment is yes. Bear in mind though that we are discussing geological timescales there, and it is the additional atmospheric mass from volcanic sources which causes the increase in surface temperature, not the makeup of the gases.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/07/2012 23:57:03 MDT.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/uncertainty-the-origin-of-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/

It is your article above that I found reference to all of the 'underestimated' volcanic activity. In the article you clearly agree with the sources of the information so that you can down play the effects of human emissions. It's amazing how you chastize me as if you never had anything to do with this information. I simply follwed a reference you made in a post on 8/03 58.12. It was a reference to Cardellini et al's 2011 empirical work.

It is clear that in the article you agree with the findings that there is enough underestimated and newly found undersea volcanic activity to trounce prior accepted figures that Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanos. Emissions from solid lava rock make up the gap too. So, what you are agreeing with is that there was a missing amount of volcanic activity - 100 times previously accepted values of volcanic activity. Your colleages have discovered that there is 100 times more volcanic activity in the world than previously thought 1 year agao. Sorry, I'm dismissing that much of the emissions come from solid lava rock. Wouldn't we ALL have heard about this? It is has been pretty well accepted that Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanos do on a yearly bases. I can see why you would want to get rid of that information.

Since CO2 amounts have been climbing for the last century or so only, in a noticeable way, wouldn't we have noticed a 100 fold increase in volcanic activity in a noticeable way? Is it all conveniently hidden undersea?

Edited by wildlife on 08/08/2012 02:58:58 MDT.

Dan asks:
wouldn't we have noticed a 100 fold increase in volcanic activity?

There hasn't been a hundred fold increase in volcanic activity. The emission from the lava fields (as they break down into soil)simply wasn't measured and accounted for before. Which means of course that the sinks which absorb co2 are also a lot larger than previously thought.

prior accepted figures that Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanos.

You need to read and understand all of Tim Casey's article before we can progress this discussion:

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

Here's the abstract for those short of time.

Abstract

A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. Deepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.

Edited by tallbloke on 08/08/2012 04:14:43 MDT.

"The atmosphere’s opacity increases so that the altitude from which the Earth’s radiation is effectively emitted into space becomes higher.

Because the temperature is lower at higher altitudes, less energy is emitted (to space), causing a positive radiative forcing. This effect is called the enhanced greenhouse effect, which is discussed in detail in Chapter 6."

Except it isn't. Chapter 6 doesn't discuss it at all..."


It's interesting that any typographical error is interpreted by you as a conspiracy

Maybe it's a different chapter, or they intended to discuss it further...


But, that's an interesting theory - another positive feedback


Things are so complicated and we don't begin to understand, but we keep burning fossil fuels like crazy - we are in a huge science experiment

Rog said,

" There hasn't been a hundred fold increase in volcanic activity. The emission from the lava fields (as they break down into soil)simply wasn't measured and accounted for before. "

OK, Rog, so what do you suppose the percentage is of basalt rock turning to soils and emmiting CO2? It hardly matters since you are saying this is part of what is accounting for CURRENT Atmosphereic CO2 increases. It does not matter if this was known about or not before. If it is true, then it means all these rocks suddenly started turning to soil at a much higher rate in the last century to account for the huge increases in CO2 buildup. This is absurd on the face of it.

Right after Rog says above that there has not been a 100 fold increase in volcanic activity, instead it is also solid rocks turning to dust at an increased level as well (my sarchasm), he quotes this from one of his sources;

" Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic. "

Rog quoted me like this earlier;

" Dan asks:
wouldn't we have noticed a 100 fold increase in volcanic activity? "



What I said was,

" wouldn't we have noticed a 100 fold increase in volcanic activity in a noticeable way? Is it all conveniently hidden undersea? "

Edited by wildlife on 08/08/2012 11:58:08 MDT.

Jerry: Typo, heh. Insead of speculating, try to find the 'full discussion' of the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect in the literature. Good luck.

Dan: Whether or not you think undersea volcanoes are "convenient", there have been a lot more discovered. It's discussed in peer reviewed papers.

"...undersea volcanoes...there have been a lot more discovered..."

So that's your story - there are a lot more undersea volcanoes than we thought so that must be the source of the increaseing CO2 in the atmosphere?

I think we should take all reasonable actions to reduce fossil fuel burning just in case you're wrong...

But, that is cool that they're researching this. They are putting sensors all over the ridge off the Oregon coast. Getting pictures. Funny how little we know about the ocean.