It’s been years since I did a differential or an integral, so it’ll take some time to work through your annotation.

I lifted this section from Wikipedia’s greenhouse effect page about blackbody and the origin of the term greenhouse effect:

The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[3]

If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, it would have an expected blackbody temperature of 5.3 °C. However, since the Earth reflects about 30%[4] (or 28%[5]) of the incoming sunlight, the planet’s actual blackbody temperature is about -18 or -19 °C [6][7], about 33°C below the actual surface temperature of about 14 °C or 15 °C.[8] The mechanism that produces this difference between the actual temperature and the blackbody temperature is due to the atmosphere and is known as the greenhouse effect.

You’d have to explain your “gray body” assumptions a little more clearly in relationship to the established standard assumptions.

I find Venus nearly completely irrelevant to the discussion of Earth’s climate.

I didn’t know about the pipe-within-the-riser pipe… I guess it really wouldn’t matter to the steel plate choke-type thing I’ve advocated for.

The riser pipe was cut very close to the top of the LMRP… so it’s not like there’s a whole lot of riser left to do the slot and steel plate thing.

Whoever directed the riser cut has obviously never taken a chainsaw to a large tree. Of course the damned thing was gonna get stuck.

They could re-cut it now and get a smooth cut…

However, after seeing video of the diamond-steel-rope saw, it’s obvious that manufacturer has the expertise to make a clamp-on grapple.

I’ll have to do another post on the idea that gave me…

I am hearing different pipe size diameters: 7″ & 19″. Resin Systems of Calgary makes strong composite poles which gradually decrease with height. One could be inverted and stuffed down the well while letting part of the oil flow up its center. Unfortunately the narrowest possible end is 8.25″” and won’t even enter the 7″ pipe but would create a gradual block as it were lowered 42′ down the 19″” pipe.

It’s just odd balancing the investment of time to explain and draw something feeling the odds are stacked against anyone seeing it.

Here’s a description:
If the riser pipe is 21″ Outside Diameter, cut a section of pipe, maybe even across its diameter, and cut a slot in it for the flow restrictor plate.

the flow restrictor plate will be at least 36″ long… It will “stick out” of the back of the reinforcing plate, or “outside everything.” To ensure it winds up straight, weld a triangular piece of steel to the outside-everything portion of the flow restrictor and to the outside of the reinforcing pipe section.
When fully inserted into the riser pipe, the reinforcing pipe section can be strapped to the riser.

Again, very simplistic explanation…

Not meant to be an absolutely perfect seal, but restrict flow enough to buy time for the relief wells to work…

Can be completely encased in concrete under one of the “top hats” or domes if flow is slowed down sufficiently.

When Climate Scientists speak of “forcing” components, it is relationship to the “black body radiation” measurement. An object in space with no thermonuclear reaction emitting energy (like a star) will absorb radiation and emit the same amount of radiation it absorbs (at equilibrium). Energy in=energy out. Satellite measurements have been confirming that the “energy out” from the surface of the earth is not equivalent to the energy the earth is absorbing from the sun. The ‘missing’ emitted infrared or heat energy (from the satellite measurements) is being absorbed by atmospheric CO2 and re-radiated in all directions, including toward earth, where it is absorbed. Thus, it is forcing the global average temp upward.

If you search around, you might find a manufactured controversy over the satellite measurements. For a period of time, the clocks controlling the data collection were actually off, skewing the results cooler. The measurements were being taken at later hours, but were timestamped as middle-of-the-day. Once this was discovered, the data was appropriately assigned to correct hours of the day. The resulting data supports all the other evidence the global average temperature is trending upward.

The oceans are actually functioning as a CO2 sink. The downside of this as we seem to understand it is that the pH of the ocean is trending downward, towards more acidity. This is wreaking havoc on fragile ecosystems such as tropical coral. Their function as a heat sink through changing albedo near the poles certainly contributes to warming. In my research I’ve seen the exact formula with the albedo variable. I’m going to have to dig a little to find it again, along with the albedo values so we can get a more precise estimation of the magnitude of its contribution.

There have been anecdotal stories of Siberian lakes, thawed for the first time in recorded history, bubbling from the release of methane and methane hydrates. It has been theorized that vast quantities of methane may be released with the absence of arctic ice, contributing to the acceleration of the phenomenon. However, when you look at the volume of CO2 man produces through the burning of fossil fuels for transport, space heating, electrical production, and industrial processes like iron and glass production, you have to ask where the “low hanging fruit” really is. As I currently understand it, there’s nothing we can do about those releases. So I’d rather concentrate on the things we can affect.
Thanks for the comment!

The MIT professor used in that very film wrote a letter to the producers after he saw the final cut asking that it never be shown due to its inaccuracies. I found a copy of the letter in that same blog post, printed in its entirety with permission… So as to preserve the entire intent of the letter, I will also repost it in its entirety just below.

Below is the text of a letter from Carl Wunsch, reproduced with permission.

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film “The Global Warming Swindle.” Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled—please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change—
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because
I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable
climate-change stories in the
British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others.
When a journalist approaches me suggesting a “critical approach” to a
technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious,
and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, “critical” does
not mean a hatchet job—it means a thorough-going examination of
the science. The scientific subjects described in the email,
and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated,
worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the
public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words “polemic”, or
“swindle” appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have
instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as
the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs — thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters
and do understand something of the ways in which one can be
misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some
of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of
complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had
an experience like this one. My appearance in the “Global Warming
Swindle” is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation
has been damaged. I was duped—an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology